Sharif @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19455

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1561 of 2025 Applicant :- Sharif @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.709 of 2024, under Sections 309(6), 317(2), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 109 BNSS, registered at Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Unnao.

¶7

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 04.10.2024 when four unidentified persons reportedly looted the applicant's jewellery and currency.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons and the applicant is said to have been taken into custody on the basis of alleged confessional statement of one Rahul Kumar Maurya on 05.10.2024. It is submitted that there is no recovery shown against the applicant who has been taken into custody only on the basis of alleged extra judicial confessional statement. The applicant is under incarceration since 08.10.2024 and his previous criminal history has already been explained in paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application in which he has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases imputed against him.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that there was recovery effected of the stolen items from the coaccused Rahul Kumar Maurya who has also implicated the applicant. It is admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has already

¶10

been explained.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR has been lodged against unidentified persons and applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar Maurya. There does not appear to be any recovery made from applicant who is under incarceration since 08.10.2024 with previous criminal history having already been explained.

¶15

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Sharif @ Guddu , involved in the 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:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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. 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.

¶21

(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. 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

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

Sharif @ Guddu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharif @ Guddu v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rinku Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Roshan Nishad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Zakir Hussain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko