Gopal Kumar @ Rosan @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11080

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1565 of 2025

Applicant :- Gopal Kumar @ Rosan @ Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Virijendra Kumar Singh,Amit Kumar Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 132 of 2024, under sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 340, 336, 61 (2) A of B.N.S. and Section 66 D of the I.T. Act, Police Station-Cyber Crime, District -Lucknow.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that main allegation is against one Faij @ Adil as is evident from his statement given at the time of preparing the recovery memo in which he has stated that he has got opened account in the name of applicant and he has also got applicant's four sim card, one laptop, two mobile phone and Rs.1,45, 400/-. Adding his argument he also submits that in the present case the applicant is victim himself but the police has been falsely planted him. He further added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2024. He added that there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as he has committed offence and there is cogent and credible evidence against him.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that case of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of named co-accused- Faiz @ Adil, as is evident from his statement given at the time of preparing the recovery memo, the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2024; there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant; coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Gopal Kumar @ Roshan @ Rahul , involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings

¶17

against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Ram Murti

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gopal Kumar @ Rosan @ Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Kumar @ Rosan @ Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Prateek Singh @ Alok Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ram Dev Gupta Sub Inspector vs State of U.P. Thru. Inspector Jaiprakash Yadav Establishment Lko

Smt. Pratibha Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mahfooj Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gangeshwar Pandey @ Golu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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