Allowed

Gyanendra @ Lalu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024BAIL/891/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for accused in a case involving offences under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent and observed no risk of witness tampering, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, and compliance with conditions regarding evidence, witnesses, and court attendance.

Gyanendra @ Lalu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 891 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Gyanendra @ Lalu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deo Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dr. Shailendra Sharma,Shitesh Jha

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that notice to the complainant is served.

¶7

None appears for the complainant.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.575/2023, under Sections 376D/342/323/504/506 IPC, Section 5g/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) da, 3(1) dha and 3(2)5a of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim of the case has been examined along with one more witness of fact i.e. informant. There is no chance of tampering the evidence. In the medical examination, there is no opinion regarding rape of the victim. He submits that applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is in jail since 24.09.2023.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2023 having no criminal history, the victim has been examined along with the informant before the learned

¶12

special court thus, there appears to be hardly any chance for tampering with the prosecution witnesses so also the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another : Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 , without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Gyanendra @ Lalu be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶20

each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gyanendra @ Lalu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra @ Lalu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Syed Zamin Abbas Rizvi @ Yameen Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another