Amit @ Kutnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4939 of 2024

Amit @ Kutnu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravi Prakash Yadav, Aditya Kumar, Amol Kumar Srivastava, Mohd. Israil, Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vijay Kumar Verma

¶8

Court No. - 12

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant's father Genda Lal used to do agriculture work and lived in a room constructed at the tube well of one Vinod Tiwari for the last two and a half years. It is alleged that on 7.1.2024 in the night, some unknown persons by cutting the door of the tube well which was made from iron sheet have assaulted him on his head and face and caused severe injuries and ran away by locking the door from inside. On 8.1.2024 at about 11.00 am, the villagers found the informant's father dead.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the post-mortem report, the deceased suffered six ante-mortem injuries. The cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. He submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The alleged recovery of danda from the applicant is false as there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Only suspicion has been raised in the prosecution case against the applicant. Except this, there is no other corroborative material against the applicant. He

¶14

BAIL No. 4939 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

submits that till date, four prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Amongst those, two prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile. The PW-4 has also not supported the prosecution case. Thus, there is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence.

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicant has explained his criminal history in the supplementary affidavit filed today and he is languishing in jail since 11.1.2024. 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.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that the case is of circumstantial evidence; the applicant has no criminal history; till date, four prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court; amongst those, two prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile; the PW-4 has also not supported the prosecution case; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that the applicant has duly explained the criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 11.1.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Amit @ Kutnu involved in Case Crime No. 04 of 2024, under Sections 452, 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Beeghapur, District- Unnao, 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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

¶25

BAIL No. 4939 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

September 15, 2025 Shravan

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit @ Kutnu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit @ Kutnu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

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

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ramkhelawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

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

Naresh Kumar Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Lko. and Another