Allowed

Niranjan Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2025BAIL/735/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under sections 34, 504, 506, 341, 307, 120-B IPC; applicant not named in FIR, in jail since 29-10-2024 with eight explained prior cases. Court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions, without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Niranjan Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home)… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4954

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 735 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Niranjan Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. Of U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 222 of 2023, under sections 34, 504, 506, 341, 307, 120-B of the I.P.C., Police Station-Karaundikalan, District-Sultanpur.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant is not named in the first information report and even the two injured persons have also not named the applicant. He next added that after 15 days of the alleged incident, on the basis of an information received by the informer, the applicant was arrested and he is implicated in the present matter. He submits that the only evidence against the applicant is the confessional statement and there is no other material evidence against him. He also submits that even there is a contradiction with respect to the pellets and bullets and by demonstrating the recovery memo, wherein the same was of 3.15 Bore and the bullet, which was recovered from the body of the injured, is of 32 bore. He also submits that the applicant is cooperating in the investigation proceedings and

¶10

there are eight cases criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 29-10-2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29-10-2024; eight cases criminal history of the applicant has been explained coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Niranjan Gautam, involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing

¶16

the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(3) 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.; and

¶19

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.1.2025

¶23

AKS

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Niranjan Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Soni Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Raja Singh @ Veer Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sudhir Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Niranjan Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

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