Shivam Dubey @ Golu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29085

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 491 of 2025

Applicant :- Shivam Dubey @ Golu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Mohd Agha Haider Rizvi,Suraj Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 251 of 2019, under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S.- Banthra, District Lucknow.

¶9

As per gang chart, applicant is shown involved in three cases bearing case crime No. 314 of 2018, 27 of 2019 and 28 of 2019 in which he has already been enlarged on bail by trial court in bail application No.1302 of 2019, 1648 of 2019 and 1090 of 2019 respectively.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the said facts.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases filed against him as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application and therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) of U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities

¶15

(Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant Shivam Dubey @ Golu involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) 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

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on 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 269 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) 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 209 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 prabhat

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivam Dubey @ Golu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Dubey @ Golu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Godiya Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Divya Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt.Lko and Another

Ritesh Singh @ Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Yuva Kalyaan Evam Prantiya Rakshak Dal, Lko. and 4 Others

Madhulika vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.