Gautam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28163

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 232 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gautam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Nijam Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.220 of 2024, under Sections 376-D, 323, 506, 344 I.P.C., P.S.-Alapur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.

¶9

Prosecution story in brief is that with the applicant, the complainant along with his wife and five yearsold son went to Village Jhabua, Police Station Bawal, District Rewari (Haryana) for labour work and the applicant got introduced the complainant with the co-accused Samundar Singh. Thereafter, the complainant and his wife started working in the house and agricultural fields of co-accused Samundar Singh. On 18.4.2024, co-accused Samundar Singh including the applicant came in drunken state and after beating the complainant closed him in a room and then they committed rape with the wife of the complainant extending threat to life of his son. Thereafter, his wife made call to the complainant and informed him that the accused persons are taking her another place and they have kept her for immoral trafficking and requested him for her rescue.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the incident is said to have taken place on 18.4.2024 whereas the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 7.5.2024, i.e., after one and half month of the alleged incident and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 18.9.2025. He added that the medical was done after two months of the incident. He next added that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the applicant is not named whereas in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the offence is said to be committed by the applicant including co-accused Samundar Singh on 15.4.2025, which belies the story of the prosecution as

¶11

the offence is said to have been committed on 18.4.2024 as per the F.I.R. He added that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the victim and the prosecution story and in fact this F.I.R. has been lodged to mount pressure over the applicant as one of the agricultural field owners deducted the remuneration of the alleged victim and being inimical, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged and an allegation of committing rape has been levelled against the co-accused person including the applicant. He next added that there is no independent eye witness of the incident and even there is no plausible explanation that why the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has been instituted after one and half month. He also submits that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 19 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and the allegation against the applicant is serious in nature. He added that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and the charge sheet has been filed, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that incident is said to have taken place on 18.4.2024 whereas the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is instituted after one and half month. Further the statement of the alleged victim is not corroborative of the date of incident deposed before the learned trial court under Section 164 Cr.P.C. If it is assumed that the offence has been committed on 15.4.2024 then the date of incident which has been stated in application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which thereafter is in the form of the F.I.R. is belied. Further the medical report is after two months of the alleged incident and there is no eye witness of the incident. This Court has also considered that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 19 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

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

¶15

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Gautam Singh 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

(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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ram Murti

¶24

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

Gautam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Shaleen Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anotehr

Bablu @ Badlu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.and Another

Lal Singh @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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