Amit Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 May, 2026

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

Amit Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 6 May, 2026

Author: J.K. Maheshwari

Bench: J.K. Maheshwari

                         ITEM NO.1               COURT NO.3           SECTION II

                               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
                                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                         Petition(s) for       Special   Leave   to   Appeal   (Crl.)
                         No. 898/2026

                         [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
                         dated   12-08-2025 in CRMBA No. 23374/2024 passed
                         by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]

                         AMIT KUMAR                               Petitioner(s)

                                                      VERSUS

                         THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH               Respondent(s)

Date : 06-05-2026
This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

SPONSORED

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR

For Petitioner(s) :

Mr. K.B. Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Maruti Nandan, Adv.

Ms. Kalpana, Adv.

Mr. Pushkar Anand, AOR

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR
Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Pratap Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Noopur Dubey, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel
Signature Not Verified
the Court made the following
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.05.07
17:35:02 IST
Reason: SLP (Crl.) No. 898/2026 1
O R D E R

1) Against the order of rejection of

regular bail by the High Court and to seek

bail, the present special leave petition

has been filed.

2) The petitioner is in custody

w.e.f.24.06.2023 in connection with FIR

No.218/2023 dated 23.06.2023 for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A,

304B, 323, 504, 506 and 316 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3/4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered

with Police Station Kotwali, District

Jalaun.

3) After hearing learned counsel and

considering the period of custody already

undergone which is about 2½ years;

charges have been framed somewhere in the

SLP (Crl.) No. 898/2026 2
end of 2023 and by this time, out of 39,

only 2 witnesses could have been examined,

however, delay in conclusion of trial

cannot be ruled out. Considering the

aforesaid, without expressing any opinion

on the merits of the case, we deem it

appropriate to release the petitioner on

bail.

4) Accordingly, we direct to release the

petitioner on bail on furnishing the

suitable bail bonds and sureties and on

such other terms and conditions as may be

deemed fit by the trial Court.

5) Petitioner to abide all the conditions

as imposed and shall regularly attend the

trial until exempted by the Court.

Violation, if any, may give a cause to

take recourse as permissible and the trial

SLP (Crl.) No. 898/2026 3
Court is at liberty to do the needful.

6) Accordingly, and in view of the

foregoing, the special leave petition

stands allowed. Pending application(s),

if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (NAND KISHOR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SLP (Crl.) No. 898/2026 4