Gyanesh vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56399

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12401 of 2025

Applicant :- Gyanesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially implication of the applicant along with co-accused was only under Sections 147, 323 IPC. Subsequent implication under Section 308 IPC has been made without considering the fact that injured was standing along with informant on the roof when incident took place. The Investigating Officer has falsely implicated the applicant and assigned the role of causing injury to the injured when the injured has admitted that the injury was not causing by the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.02.2025 and he has no criminal history to his credit.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677. and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant

¶10

has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Gyanesh involved in Case Crime No. 179 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 308, 336 IPC, Police Station- Atrauli, District- Aligarh, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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 then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) 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. 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Mini

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gyanesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanesh v. State of U.P.

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

Shahrookh Alias Pagli vs State of U.P.

Rahul Alias Mahesh vs State of U.P.

Fariyad vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Farahim Alias Faheem Alias Farahim vs State of U.P.

Santosh Singh vs State of U.P.

Rajpal vs State of U.P.