Guddu @ Ayodhya Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

In the prosecution case it is alleged that about five years ago, the complainant paid Rs.5 lakh to Lakhan Singh for purchase of a plot. Lakhan Singh, claiming to be the secretary of Naveen Cooperative Housing Society, neither gave the plot nor returned the money. On 31.03.2024 at about 8:00 p.m., Lakhan Singh called the complainant near the Purana Para police station flyover, promising to return the amount. He took her on his white scooter (UP32 FE 6694) to a secluded place near Tikunia turn, by the canal, where two unknown persons were present. There, Lakhan Singh threatened the complainant with a pistol, forcibly raped her, and the other two recorded the act on his direction. He abused, assaulted, and threatened to kill her and upload the video online if she reported the matter. The accused then fled, leaving the complainant terrified. Hence, the case was registered against Lakhan Singh and his associates for cheating, rape, and criminal intimidation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant’s name does not find mention in the original FIR. He has also explained a prior criminal history of a minor offence in paragraph 20 of the Rejoinder Affidavit. The

¶15

BAIL No. 12784 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

cause of death, according to the post-mortem report, is asphyxia due to antemortem throttling. There was a delay of three days in registering the FIR.

¶18

He further submits that the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, did not initially name the applicant in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in their subsequent restatement. The applicant’s name surfaced only after one year and four months through affidavits filed by the mother, father, and brother of the deceased, who had earlier not implicated him. Even in those affidavits, only suspicion was raised against the applicant.

¶19

Similarly, independent witnesses, namely Ram Prakash and Sunil Dubey, filed affidavits on 29.08.2024, after a delay of approximately one year and four months, merely expressing suspicion against the applicant. Their statements cannot be considered as last seen evidence or carry substantial evidentiary value. It appears that the applicant’s name has been mechanically introduced into the investigation solely on the basis of these delayed affidavits, which do not constitute direct or conclusive evidence. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.09.2024.

¶20

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts mentioned above.

¶22

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶23

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, noting that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 13.09.2024, and that the case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence where the chain of circumstances does not appear to be complete and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

BAIL No. 12784 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

Let the applicant Guddu @ Ayodhya Prasad be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶28

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶29

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶30

(iii) 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.

¶31

(iv) 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.

¶32

(v) 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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶33

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS)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 IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶34

October 6, 2025

¶35

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶36

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu @ Ayodhya Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu @ Ayodhya Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Neeraj Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

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

Suman @ Siya Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Guddu @ Ayodhya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Satish Kumar @ Satish Rawat @ Satish Rao vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Teerath Nishad vs State of U.P. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.