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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40964

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1386 of 2025

Applicant :- Gulshan Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Misra,Janardan Singh,Karunesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arun Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the statement of PW-1 - Ratanpal and PW-2 - Suraj (circumstantial witness), the same is taken on record.

¶8

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is in jail since 24.06.2024 in Case Crime No.291 of 2024 under Sections 302/34, 201 of IPC, Police Station Karnailganj, District Gonda.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 15.06.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 22.06.2024 without explaining the delay of seven days. In the impugned FIR, the allegation has been levelled against two accused persons including the present applicant. Most specific allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and the present applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion. There is no eye witness account. At the time of recording his evidence, the complainant/ informant has not supported the prosecution version, rather has stated that he had not levelled any allegation against the present applicant and he had not seen the accused - Gulshan killing his brother. Even the PW-2 has also not supported the prosecution version. During the course of the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he was not known to the present applicant and he had not seen incident in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the trial is

¶10

going on and the present applicant undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. If he is released on bail, he shall abide by all terms and conditions and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

On the other hand, Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant and submits that he is not entitled for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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 in the FIR, the date of incident has been indicated as 15.06.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 22.06.2024 without explaining the delay; the present applicant has been implicated on the basis of suspicion; there is no eye witness account; the complainant/ informant and the PW-2 have not supported the prosecution version, rather the complainant has stated that he had not levelled any allegation against the present applicant and he had not seen the accused killing his brother; during course of cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he was not known to the present applicant and he had not seen incident in question; the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, I am of the view that the applicant may be released on bail in this case.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Gulshan , 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:-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(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 under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶17

(iii) 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./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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶18

(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 313 Cr.P.C./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 in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Sumit Shukla @ Supin Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Raju Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Dan Bahadur Singh @ Dhanna Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

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

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

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