Bantu @ Harish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 03.12.2024, at around 8:45 p.m., the complainant’s son, Amandeep Gupta, who runs a mobile shop, was attacked near Navben Galla Mandi by Vinod Rathore, Satish Rathore, Vivek Rathore, Bantu @ Harish, two other persons named Rathore, and some unknown individuals, on account of an old enmity. The accused allegedly stopped his motorcycle, verbally abused him, and assaulted him with lathis, dandas, iron rods, and knives, while also attempting to snatch his belongings. Upon hearing the screams, passers-by gathered, causing the assailants to flee after threatening to kill him in the future. Amandeep was left severely injured, bleeding, and in a critical condition, and was immediately admitted to the district hospital, where he continues to receive treatment for grievous injuries, including severe head trauma.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been registered against five named and four unnamed accused persons. It is alleged that the accused stopped the complainant’s son’s motorcycle and by using illegal weapons, assaulted him with kicks, fists, and iron rod. The injured was admitted to the District Hospital.

¶14

It is further submitted that in the statement of the injured, seven persons have

¶15

BAIL No. 473 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

been named as perpetrators, indicating an improvement in the allegations. The general allegations involve beating with kicks, fists, lathi, and danda, but no specific role has been attributed to any accused. None of the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous, and no fracture has been found.

¶18

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

¶20

Perused the record.

¶21

Upon perusal of the record, the medical report filed by the State does not indicate any fracture. Injury numbers 9 and 10 have been opined as simple by Dr. Sanjay, and injuries 1 to 8 were referred for X-ray; however, it appears from the statement of the doctor that no X-ray was conducted, and thus, no fracture has been found.

¶22

Considering that the charge sheet has already been filed; the trial has not yet commenced; and the applicant is in custody since 05.12.2024 without having any criminal antecedents, I find this to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant Bantu @ Harish involved in Case Crime No.- 457/2024, Sections-61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 109, 352, 351(2), 126(2) Β.Ν.S. P.S.Ramkot, District Sitapur, 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶28

BAIL No. 473 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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 in accordance with law.

¶33

(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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶34

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶35

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶36

October 8, 2025 R.C.

¶37

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bantu @ Harish v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bantu @ Harish v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home 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

Santosh Bharti Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Lavkush Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy Deptt. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.