Budhram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4111

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 482 of 2025

Applicant :- Budhram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the supplementary affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record. By means of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit, the criminal history of one case registered against the present applicant, has been explained.

¶8

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Budhram) is languishing in jail since 28.10.2024 in Case Crime No.386 of 2024, under Section 105 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Hardi, District-Bahraich.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶10

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the general allegation has been levelled against three accused persons including the present applicant. No specific role has been attributed to the present applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from possession of the present applicant. The victim (since deceased) received two injuries whereas the prosecution story says that all accused persons were beating the victim (since deceased) mercilessly through Bamboo Cane and Stick, however, the victim (since deceased) received only one contusion and one abrasion. The cause of death could not be ascertained, therefore, Viscera has been preserved.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the charge-

¶12

sheet has been filed in this case. The present applicant is having criminal history of one case which has been explained in para-3 of the supplementary affidavit. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that there are general allegation against all the accused persons including the present applicant and no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant; nothing incriminating has been recovered from possession of the present applicant; as per the prosecution story all accused persons were beating the victim mercilessly through Bamboo Cane and Stick, however, in the post-mortem report the victim received only two injuries i.e. one contusion and one abrasion; the charge-sheet has been filed in this case; the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

10. Let the applicant (Budhram) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) 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 IPC/269 of the

¶19

B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

(iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Suresh/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Budhram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Brijesh Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Munna Sahnkar Ram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Babu vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Adil Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others