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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2639 of 2025

Shyam Babu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Faizal Hashmi, Pankaj Kumar, Piyush Tripathi, Prashant Mishra, Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 12

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that daughter of the informang was married with the accused applicant on 7.1.2017. On 30th October, 2024 at about 8.00a.m., the informant was told by in-laws of the applicant that the deceased is seriously ill. It is further alleged that the daughter of the informant has been badly beaten by the named accused persons and has been done to death and thereafter hanged. She was taken to the hospital and leaving the dead body in the hospital where she died, they fled away.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any such incident. The deceased was married with the applicant more than seven years ago. Except general allegation in the prosecution case, there is no specific averment against the accused applicant. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging which falsifies the prosecution version in the first information report that the deceased was brutally beaten and was murdered by strangulating her. No ante mortem injury is present on the body of the deceased except ligature mark.

¶13

The co-accused Ram Babu has been granted bail by the Sessions Court. T he applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since

¶14

BAIL No. 2639 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

20.11.2024.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused, named above, has been granted bail, ante mortem injuries sustained by the injured, Cause of death, general nature of allegation in the first information report as also the reply given by the complainant to the questions put by the investigating officer, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

6. Let the applicant Shyam Babu, involved in Case Crime No.571 of 2024 under section 108 BNS, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, district Ayodhya, 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:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(iv) 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

¶25

BAIL No. 2639 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

accordance with law.

¶28

(v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶29

(vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶30

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

September 10, 2025

¶33

kkb/

¶34

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyam Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Babu 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

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Visheshwar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Mohd. Afzal Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Yadav @ Anil Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ritik Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others