Allowed

Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2024/11451/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Court allowed a bail application filed by Guddu in a criminal trial for offences including rioting and assault. The court noted an identical co-accused had been granted bail and the prosecution case against loot was weak, finding sufficient grounds for bail release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding future conduct.

Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72506

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11451 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari,Sushila Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that necessary instructions could not be furnished by the concerned police station.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submits that it is a case of parity as identically placed co-accused person has been granted bail.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Guddu for grant of bail in Case Crime No.277 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 458, 323, 325 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Asoha, District Unnao, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and, he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. The applicant has been arrayed as an accused in this case only on account of established enmity between the parties as earlier also a false F.I.R. was lodged by the family of the informant against the applicant and his other family members.

¶11

It is further submitted that general role of assault and also of loot has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the F.I.R., however, the story of loot, as cooked up by the informant, has not been found truthful as none of the witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer has stated about the loot of any jewellery etc. and it appears that the story of loot of jewellery has been cooked falsely afterwords in order to add gravity to the alleged false accusation. It is further submitted that five persons are stated to have sustained simple injuries and having regard to the established enmity between the two families false accusation of

¶12

the applicant may not be ruled out.

¶13

It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 27.09.2024. While drawing attention of this Court towards paragraph no.15 of the affidavit enclosed with this application, it is vehemently submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal history. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Identically placed co-accused person namely Madan has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.171 of 2024.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that about five ladies have been assaulted by the applicant and other accused persons.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that FIR has been lodged against 10 named accused persons and general allegation of mar-peet and loot has been levelled against all the accused persons named in the F.I.R.. Apart from the informant, the other prosecution witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer has not stated anything about the alleged loot. The investigating officer has submitted chargesheet against four accused persons. The defence of the applicant appears to be that simple injuries have been sustained by the injured persons and having regard to the established enmity false accusation of the applicant may not be ruled out. It is also emphasized that the case of the prosecution is in doubt as out of 10 named accused persons only four accused persons have been charge-sheeted by the investigating officer. The applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 07.12.2023 with any criminal history. Identically placed co-accused person namely Madan has been granted bail by this Court. Charge sheet in this case has also been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is, thus, allowed .

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Guddu involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶18

the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) If, at any stage of the trial, it is found that any criminal history of the applicant as on today has been concealed, the same shall be sufficient ground for trial court to cancel the bail granted by this Court.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Anupam S/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Mohd. Iqbal Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Imran Thru. His Wife Smt. Husna Bano vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others