Ankit Das @ Govind Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0073 of 2023 under Section 302, 404 and 411 IPC, Police Station Ram Janam Bhoomi, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶11

In the prosecution case it is alleged that the complainant, Mahant Shri Ram Charan Das, lodged a First Information Report on 19.10.2023, stating that he is a resident of Hanumangarhi Temple. One Sadhu, namely Ram Sahare Das, aged about 38 years, had been residing in the said Hanumangarhi Temple since his childhood by practicing Sadhu rituals. It is further alleged that in the room of Ram Sahare Das, the present accused/applicant, a boy belonging to the State of Bihar, had been residing for the last few months. A few days prior to the incident, another boy, namely Risabh Shukla, also came and started living in the same room. On 18.10.2023, both these boys, i.e., the present accused/applicant and co-accused Risabh Shukla, were present along with Ram Sahare Das in the same room. The complainant suspects that both of them murdered Ram Sahare Das, whose dead body was later found lying inside the said room. It is further stated that in the morning, after the incident came to light, co-accused Risabh Shukla absconded from the spot. At the place of occurrence, CCTV cameras are installed, which may reveal the

¶12

BAIL No. 4295 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

sequence of events. It is further alleged that the motive behind the commission of the crime was either lust or the need of money.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in jail since 20.10.2023. Till date, only five prosecution witnesses have been examined. The case rests on circumstantial evidence; there is no eye-witness account and not even the evidence of “last seen.” The applicant has been implicated merely on the basis of a hearsay statement attributed to one Parmatma.

¶16

It is further argued that the alleged recovery of a knife and gamcha shown at the pointing out of the applicant and co-accused is from an open place and thus doubtful. The alleged recovery of Rs.41,000/- from the applicant is also stated to be false, inasmuch as the recovery memo itself records that Rs.41,750/- was recovered from the room of the deceased and not from the possession of the applicant. Out of 21 witnesses, 16 witnesses are yet to be examined and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant absconding or tampering with the witnesses if released on bail. The applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail and is even ready to furnish heavy local sureties.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that it is a gruesome murder, wherein the deceased sustained 12 antemortem injuries and the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to the said injuries.

¶19

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶20

On due consideration of the facts that (i) only five witnesses of fact have been examined while eleven still remain, (ii) the case is of circumstantial evidence, (iii) there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery, (iv) the applicant has no criminal antecedents, (v) he is in jail since 20.10.2023, and (vi) the undertaking offered by the applicant to furnish heavy local sureties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am

¶21

BAIL No. 4295 of 2024

¶22

3

¶23

of the view that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant Ankit Das @ Govind be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid case crime number, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iv) 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.

¶30

(v) 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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶31

(vi) 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. (now 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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶32

It is directed that the applicant shall remain present before the trial court at least once during the course of trial including on the date fixed in the trial

¶33

BAIL No. 4295 of 2024

¶34

4

¶35

unless exempted by the court concerned.

¶36

September 24, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶37

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Das @ Govind v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Das @ Govind v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Bhavan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

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

Shivam Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Anil @ Surya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Suspier vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Naresh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Cooperative Lko. and 6 Others