Buddhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30924

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2962 of 2025 Applicant :- Buddhesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi,Shubhangi Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

¶6

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.33 of 2024, under Sections 379, 411 and 413 I.P.C., registered at P.S.-GRP Gonda, District -Gonda.

¶7

It has been submitted that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons indicating that the mobile phone of the informant was stolen on 06.04.2024 when he was travelling along with his family.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that he has not been named in the FIR. He submits that there is no cogent explanation for substantial delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR. He has also adverted to Case Crime No.42 of 2024 indicating applicant's arrest and recovery of the said stolen mobile phone along with certain currency notes from his person.

¶9

It has been submitted that perusal of recovery memo registered as Case Crime No.42 of 2024 also makes it evident that charges levelled against applicant are unbelievable since the recovery is said to have been affected on 19.09.2024 at the instance of police informer. It has further been submitted that there was no occasion for such recovery from applicant after more than three months of it being reported stolen. It is also submitted that previous criminal history of 12 cases against applicant has been explained.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that stolen mobile phone has clearly been recovered from the person of applicant. It is however admitted that previous criminal history against applicant has been explained.

¶11

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 :-

¶12

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

¶13

the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶14

"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."

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that Case Crime No. 33 of 2024 has been lodged against unknown persons after almost one and half months from the date of alleged occurrence and there does not appear to be any cogent explanation for the same. Case Crime No.42 of 2024 indicates recovery from applicant of the alleged stolen mobile phone after more than three months at the instance of police informer. It has been admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant Buddhesh Kumar , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(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 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 kvg/-

¶23

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

Buddhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

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

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

Pankaj Gond @ Pankaj Gaud Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anothers

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

Durgesh Mishra @ Ashish Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Uma Kant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.