Lalta Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1764

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 174 of 2025 Applicant :- Lalta Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

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. 28 of 2020 under Section 60 Excise Act and 272 of IPC P.S.- Pura Qalandar District- Ayodhya.

¶6

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that the applicant was enlarged on bail and due to the communication gap, he could not be informed regarding date fixed by this Court and this fact has specifically been mentioned in paragraph nos. 6 to 8 and thus, non-bailable warrant was issued to him. He also submits that there is no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant as is mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 20.02.2024. He next submits that his absence before the trial court is not deliberate, but is due to unavoidable circumstances and he undertakes that if, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will always remain present before the trial court and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant is not appearing before the trial court since last 8 years and trial is being hampered thus, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶8

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant has explained his non-presence in paragraph nos. 6 to 8 of the bail application as he stated that due to communication gap between him and his counsel, he could not appear before the trial court and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant as is mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application and is languishing in jail since 20.02.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will always remain present before the trial court and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Lalta Prasad 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

(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;

¶13

(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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Mayank

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalta Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalta Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

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

Satya Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Rajnish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Chandra Prakash Gautam @ Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ritesh Singh @ Shubham Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Phoolchandra Pasi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.