Shubham @ Gaurav vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38838 of 2025

Shubham @ Gaurav

		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohd.	Naushad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Shubham @ Gaurav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 61(2)(A), 317(3), 336(2) of BNS, Police Station Kotwali Shamli, District Shamli during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., some unknown persons has looted Rs. 32 lakh, mobile phone and ATM etc. from the informant. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., his name was surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of false information given to the Investigating Officer. He further submits He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that informant in his statement recorded under section 180 of BNSS before the Investigating Officer stated that Rs. 25 lakh was looted by some unknown person. He further submits that during the course of investigation accused applicant was arrested and recovery of two live cartridges, Rs. 220 and one country made pistol 315 bore was made and Rs. 10 lakh was also said to be

¶10

BAIL No. 38838 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

recovered from the Wagon-R car. He further submits that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that false recovery has been shown from the possession of the accused applicant, however, neither there was any independent witness of the alleged recovery, nor any relevant evidence is on the record. He further submits that coaccused Rohan, Vikas @ Vikki and Brijpal @ Pintu have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.10.2025, 03.11.2025 and 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37942 of 2025, 38186 of 2025 and 8032 of 2025. He further submits that criminal history of applicant has been explained in para no. 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 09.06.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any

¶15

BAIL No. 38838 of 2025

¶16

3

¶17

opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶19

(ii) 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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶22

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

November 19, 2025 Bhanu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham @ Gaurav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham @ Gaurav v. State of U.P.

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

Shivkumar Bind vs State of U. P.

Mrs. Mamta Pal vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Rihan vs State of U.P.

Jwala Yadav Alias Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Lakhan vs State of U.P.