Allowed

Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025BAIL/43540/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under BNS sections for alleged theft of household ornaments with a disputed recovery. Court granted bail citing prolonged trial uncertainty and Article 21, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence and requiring presence at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions including no tampering with evidence and presence at trial dates.

Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43540 of 2025

¶2

Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji

¶3

.....Applicant(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Abhinav Trivedi, Ram Shiromani Shukla
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 Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 61(2) B.N.S., P.S. Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been registered as unknown. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that some ornaments were stolen by unknown person from the house of the informant. During course of investigation name of the applicant was surfaced on the false information given to the I.O. and recovery of two pairs payal has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant but no details/specification of the so called payal has been mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the recovery memo. No independent and reliable witness of the recovery was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo and arrest of the applicant. It is argued that applicant has criminal history of 17 cases which have been explained in paras-27 and 28 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 08.09.2025. 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 A.G.A. has 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. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, it is submitted that since the charge-sheet has been submitted on 15.09.2025 in this case, therefore, there

¶10

BAIL No. 43540 of 2025

¶11

¶12

is no reasonable possibility of intimidating/pressurizing the prosecution witnesses.

¶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 (2021) 3 SSC 713 & 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 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

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

¶20

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

¶21

December 10, 2025 Asha

¶22

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Singh Parmar Alias Guddu Fauji v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Singh vs State of U.P.

Jagroshni vs State of U.P.

Najakat vs State of U.P.

Ramkeval vs State of U.P.

Karamjeet Singh vs State of U.P.

Ayan @ Annan vs State of U.P.