Vikash Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28445

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3827 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikash Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused on record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 39 of 2025 under Section 2(kha)(i) & (xi)/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Musafirkhana, District Amethi.

¶8

It is submitted that as per gang chart, applicant has been shown involved in single case bearing Case Crime No. 61 of 2024 in which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail by Trial Court in Bail Application No. 1005 of 2024 which order has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the aforesaid facts

¶10

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 :-

¶11

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

¶12

"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."

¶13

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 applicant has already been enlarged on bail in all the cases filed against him as averred in the affidavit filed in support of application and therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶14

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let applicant- Vikash Kumar Shukla involved in the 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:-

¶16

(i) 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 accordance with law.

¶17

(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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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 in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Satish

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikash Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. 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

Aftab Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mukesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Godiya Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Divya Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt.Lko and Another

Ritesh Singh @ Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others