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

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Sessions Trial No.136 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.30 of 2020 under Sections 302 I.P.C., Police Station Haidrabad, District- Kheri, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submitted that this is the second bail application of the applicant and after the rejection of first bail application, the statements of PW-1, 2 and 3 had been recorded. She has brought on record the statements of PW-1,2, and 3. She has also invited the attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-1- Sunita Devi. In her cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed before the trial court that she did not see the applicant at the place of occurrence. She further denied the fact that she was the witness of the alleged incident, therefore, she has been declared hostile.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that PW-2- Dinesh has also been examined by the trial court and in his cross-examination, he has not supported the prosecution story and has submitted that he was not present in the village when the alleged incident had taken place and after

¶14

BAIL No. 11963 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

three days from the date of incident, he came to know about the incident. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since the PW-1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution story, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 05.02.2020. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail but he could not dispute this fact that PW-1 has been declared hostile and PW-2 has not supported the prosecution version.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents as well as totality of fact and circumstances, it is evident that the PW-1 has been declared hostile and PW-2 has not supported the prosecution version; the applicant is in jail since 05.02.2020. Thus, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Let applicant - Karan - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶21

(ii) 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.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶23

BAIL No. 11963 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

(iv) 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 229-A IPC.

¶26

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶27

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

¶28

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶29

October 7, 2025

¶30

V. Sinha

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Anoop Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sebu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Triveni Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P.

Amit @ Amit Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Mobeen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others