Gabbar @ Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6160 of 2024

Gabbar @ Raju Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sanjay Singh, Singh Vaibha	Kumar Sharma, Girish Kumar Pa Royekwar, Sukh v Saxena	Dr. Deepti ndey, S M Deo Singh,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Pratap Faisal	Adarsh Srivastav Singh, Bal Keshwar Kamal Fatmi, Kam	a, Akhand Srivastava, lesh Kumar
	Rai,	Mohammad Suhel	Siddiqui,
	Prateek	Kumar Dubey,	Puspanjali
	Panday	, Rajkumar Sing	h, Sachin
	Kumar Shivesh	Mishra, Seema Prakash Dwivedi	Bhatnagar,

¶9

Court No. - 14

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶11

1. Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and Sri Sachin Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶13

3. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.36 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. and Section 5, 27/30 Arms Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Chhappia, District Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an army person and during his leave, a quarrel was taken place for installing a teen-shed and fire was opened by him only in self defence

¶15

BAIL No. 6160 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

as bricks were thrown from the side of the complainant. He further submits that applicant is in jail since 14.2.2024, charge was framed after about 21 months and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. He also submits that applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial and will not involve in any illegal activities in the future. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submits that due to firing of the applicant one person died and six persons were received injuries. They also submits that on the date of incident, marriage of son of the complainant was going on, in which, fire was opened by the applicant, statements of the injured persons are corroborating the prosecution story, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶19

6. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material available on record, contents of F.I.R., statements of the injured, it is evident that due to fire of the applicant, one person died and six persons received fire arm injury, therefore, this Court is of the view that applicant is not entitled for bail, accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

¶20

7. Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, within a period of one year.

¶21

8. However, it is open to the applicant to file fresh bail application, in case, trial of the case in question is not concluded within a period of one year.

¶22

9. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned court below for the necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶23

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶24

December 18, 2025 GauraV/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gabbar @ Raju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gabbar @ Raju Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Enulhasan @ Mizzan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Kaleem and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Ram Vilas and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anuj Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Badashah Khan @ Shabbu Shah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another