Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court held that the applicant was a fit case for release on bail. It considered the facts and circumstances, the submissions made by the applicant's counsel, the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the applicant's business credentials as a registered GST payee, and the absence of any prior criminal history. Prima facie, these factors led the Court to believe that bail should be granted. The Court directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties. Conditions were imposed that the applicant shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required. The observations made were not to affect the trial on merits.

Facts

The applicant, Piyush Shantilal Veera, sought bail in Case Crime No. 395 of 2025, under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), registered at Police Station Kotwali City, District Jhansi. The applicant, a proprietor of a registered firm and a regular GST payee, claimed to be falsely implicated and stated that the authorities were attempting to extort money. He asserted clean antecedents and had been in jail since March 30, 2026. The State was the opposite party. The case involved allegations under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the BNS.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the applicant's business credentials as a registered GST payee with no prior criminal history? Arguments for the applicant: The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, had committed no forgery, was a bona fide proprietor of a registered firm and a regular GST payee, and that the case was a high-handed attempt by authorities to extort money. He also highlighted his clean antecedents and the period of incarceration since March 30, 2026. Arguments for the State: The State did not present any specific arguments against the bail application in the provided text. The Court heard the learned A.G.A. for the State, but no counter-arguments are recorded.