Vedram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vedram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicants Vedram and Guddu on bail during the trial, upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each, subject to the four imposed conditions; surety verification and the power to cancel bail on breach left to the court concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants-Vedram and Guddu are entitled to be released on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 404 of 2024 under Section 2(b)(ii)/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Majhgai, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record, the Court found the applicants in custody since 28.12.2024, their criminal history explained, and undertakings given that they would not misuse the liberty of bail.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the submissions of both sides, the nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the reformative theory of punishment and the larger mandate of Article 21, and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the Court found it to be a fit case of bail.

Key takeaways

The applicants-Vedram and Guddu were ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.ratio¶17
Release was made subject to conditions: (1) the applicants shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing witnesses or otherwise during investigation or trial; (2) they shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present and shall remain present on each fixed date personally or through counsel, failing which (absent sufficient cause) the trial court may proceed against them under S. 229-A IPC; (3) they shall remain present in person at the opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of the S. 313 Cr.P.C. statement; and (4) upon misuse of bail liberty and issuance of an S. 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation followed by failure to appear, the trial court shall initiate proceedings under S. 174-A IPC.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Shree Prakash Singh, J.), Court No. 15, order dated 7.2.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:8157). Applicants Vedram and Guddu, in custody since 28.12.2024, sought release during trial in Case Crime No. 404 of 2024 under S. 2(b)(ii)/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S. Majhgai, District Lakhimpur Kheri. Defence counsel urged that the gang-chart allegations were vague, rested on already-pending cases rather than fresh anti-social activity, and that the 1986 Act was being wielded to harass and intimidate; the learned AGA opposed but conceded the applicants were already on bail in the gang-chart case, while three further cases in applicant no. 1's criminal history were explained with bail orders furnished through a supplementary affidavit. Weighing nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction on the charge, the reformative theory and the larger mandate of Article 21 — expressly without prejudice to the merits — the Court found it a fit case of bail, releasing the applicants on personal bonds and two sureties each, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence or witness intimidation, an undertaking against adjournment-seeking with regular trial attendance (default attracting S. 229-A IPC), personal presence at charge-framing and the S. 313 Cr.P.C. stage, and initiation of S. 174-A IPC proceedings following an S. 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation upon misuse/absconding. Surety identity, status and residence verification and power to cancel bail on breach were left to the court below; observations were strictly confined to disposal of the application.