Bablu @ Badlu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28197

Court No. - 29

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1112 of 2025

Applicant :- Bablu @ Badlu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Rakesh Kumar Saini

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Naresh Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 18 of 2004, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station Rehra Bazar, District Balrampur.

¶9

As per the version of the FIR, the allegation in the First Information Report is that the daughter-in-law of the informant was enticed away by three persons, named in the FIR.

¶10

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report and the persons, who were named in the FIR, namely, Dhani Ram and Mani Ram, have already been enlarged on bail. He added that the matter pertains to the year 2004 and the criminal proceeding of the case was stayed in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., instituted by Mani Ram Verma challenging the chargesheet. He added that the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence against the applicant and there is a doubt in the prosecution story, so far as the role of the present applicant is concerned. He further added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would always remain present as and when required and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he has failed

¶12

to contradict the contention of the applicant that identically situated co-accused, namely, Dhani Ram and Mani Ram Verma have already been enlarged on bail. The State Counsel has also failed to contradict the aforesaid fact.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report and other co-accused persons, namely, Dhani Ram and Mani Ram Verma, who were named in the FIR, have already been enlarged on bail and the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Bablu @ Badlu involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(2) 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. He 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(3) 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 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶19

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 kkv/

¶23

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

Bablu @ Badlu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu @ Badlu v. State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Shaleen Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anotehr

Gautam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Lal Singh @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.