Ashish Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18709

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2745 of 2025

Applicant :- Ashish Giri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheel Nidhi Shukla,Priya Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State while power on behalf of complainant has been filed by Mr. Nagendra Singh and Mr. Kuldeep, Advocates which is taken on record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.28 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 109, 352, 118(1), 3(5) BNS, registered at Police Station Nigoha, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 05.02.2025 at about 04.00 P.M. when the applicant along with co-accused allegedly entered into an altercation with informant and his friend resulting in serious injuries upon informant.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. It is submitted that from a bare perusal of FIR, it is evident that primary allegation of having caused injury upon the informant has been attributed to Atul Giri with applicant only being present at the place.

¶10

Learned counsel has further drawn attention to injury report of applicant himself conducted on 06.02.2025 to indicate injuries suffered by him. In pursuance thereof, it is submitted that it is in fact the informant and his friend who had attacked applicant and his family members. It is therefore submitted that the applicant was not being instigator of the incident. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application with the submission that contents of FIR clearly indicate the role of applicant and his family members in inflicting injuries upon informant. It is also submitted that charge-sheet in the matter has already been submitted but admits that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶12

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 :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the

¶14

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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that even as per contents of FIR, there is no role assigned to applicant of having inflicted any injury upon informant or his friend. Injury report of applicant has also been brought on record indicating simple injuries upon applicant. Admittedly, applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 06.02.2025.

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicant Ashish Giri , involved in 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:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶21

(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/her under Section 269 of BNS.

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section

¶23

209 of BNS.

¶24

(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 351 BNSS. 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/her in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 kvg/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashish Giri v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Giri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Saif Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Preeti Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Mohd. Wakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Syed Zafaryab Hyder Taqvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Anothers

Shagun Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Askar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.