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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10802

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1210 of 2025

Applicant :- Shivdayal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Uday Pratap Singh,Ram Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 14.10.2024 in Case Crime No. 275 of 2024 u/s 108, 3(5), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Behta Mujawar, District Unnao. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶8

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. which shows that for the alleged incident dated 9.10.2024 the F.I.R. has been lodged on 11.10.2024. In the impugned F.I.R. general allegations have been levelled against five accused persons including the present applicant to the extent that the victim (since deceased) had lodged an F.I.R. against the accused persons and the accused persons were compelling him to enter into a compromise but the deceased did not agree. Thereafter, all the accused persons exerted pressure upon him, resultant thereof he committed suicide. As per postmortem report the deceased suffered four antemortem injuries and those injuries have not been explained inasmuch as there is no allegation against the present applicant that those injuries have been caused by the present applicant or other accused persons.

¶9

Learned counsel has stated that at least the ingredients of section 108 of B.N.S. are not available inasmuch as there is no overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused persons namely Shushila, Naresh and Munesh have already been granted bail vide orders dated 20.12.2024, 13.01.2025 & 18.02.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13279 of 2024, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 194 of 2025 & Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1479 of 2025, respectively. He submits that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that general allegations have been levelled against five accused persons including the present applicant; the ingredients of section 108 of B.N.S. are not available inasmuch as there is no overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; charge-sheet has been filed in this case, besides, co-accused persons namely Shushila, Naresh and Munesh have already been granted bail vide orders dated 20.12.2024, 13.01.2025 & 18.02.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13279 of 2024, Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 194 of 2025 & Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1479 of 2025, respectively and the

¶14

undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Shivdayal , involved in 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:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / she 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.

¶18

(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 / her under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 / her in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

(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 B.N.S.S., 2023. 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 / her in accordance with law.

¶21

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 (Manoj K.)

¶23

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

Shivdayal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivdayal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Anupam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jagapatiya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

Dilip Pasi @ Dilip Kumar Bangali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Abhay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others