Nikhil Gautam @ Netaji vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41033 of 2025

Nikhil Gautam @ Netaji

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akansha Verma, Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Nikhil Gautam @ Netaji seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.204 of 2025, under Sections 317(4), 317(5), 112(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 27.8.2025. It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered as unknown with the allegation that some unknown person has stolen several ornaments by breaking the gate of the informant's house but during the course of investigation name of applicant was surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons from whom several items like spoon, lamp, achmani spoon, elephant etc and some ornaments were said to be recovered from the possession of applicant but no independent and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo and arrest of applicant. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of 16 cases which have been explained in para 22 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant

¶10

BAIL No. 41033 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

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 AIR SC 712 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any 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 heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19