Santosh Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1986

Court No. - 31

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13153 of 2024 Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manmohan Singh,Dilip Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. This case has been heard through Video Conferencing.

¶6

Heard Sri Manmohan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.39 of 2022, under Section 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Pratapgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Admittedly, the applicant has been enlarged on bail u/s 409 IPC by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10564 of 2024 but subsequently, the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted with added section 120-B IPC.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. He has not misused the liberty granted to him. Criminal history of one case assigned to him stands explained in para-25 of the affidavit filed along with bail application.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.01.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has criminal history of one case which stands explained.

¶12

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Santosh Kumar Gautam , who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351BNSS 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

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date:- 10.1.2025 Siddhant

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manjeet Singh vs State of U.P.

Ritesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P.

Dhruv Singh Rajawat vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheeraj Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Paswan vs State of U.P.

Rahul Arora vs State of U.P. and Another