Ajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9879

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1199 of 2025

Applicant :- Ajeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abrar Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.0318 of 2024, under Section 109(1), 351(3), 352 of BNS Act, 2023 P.S.- Behta Mujawar, District - Unnao.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant including the three other co-accused persons is said to be involved in committing the offence though no specific role has been assigned to anyone and further there is only one injury to the injured and this cannot be segregated at this stage that on whose blow the injured has received injuries. He next added that it seems that the incident has taken place in spur of moment and due to sudden provocation, the same has occurred and there is no pre-meeting of mind. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of tampering of the evidence and threatening the witnesses and there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 13 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Further submitted that the identically situated coaccused namely Sudheer has already been

¶10

enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 1302-2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1334 of 2025 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but, he could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused named above, has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant including the three other co-accused persons is said to be involved in committing the offence though no specific role has been assigned to anyone; there is only one injury to the injured and this cannot be segregated at this stage that on whose blow the injured has received injuries; the incident has taken place in spur of moment and due to sudden provocation, the same has occurred and there is no pre-meeting of mind; charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of tampering of the evidence and threatening the witnesses; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 13 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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 case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant, Ajeet 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

¶15

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 :- 14.2.2025 AKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet 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

Mohd. Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Muslim Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Sarvan @ Sharvan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Asraf @ Asraf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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