Atul vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57468

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8480 of 2025

Applicant :- Atul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bindu Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Bindu Kumari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Iman Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2024, under Sections 302, 504, 34, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation through CCTV footage it was found that in the incident as many as 7 to 8 persons involved and thereafter when they were identified then it was found that applicant was also one of them.

¶9

She further submitted that through CCTV footage and photograph of the accused persons it was revealed that on the exhortation of the applicant and others, co-accused Preet caused fire arm injury to the deceased. She further submitted that therefore, role of causing fire arm injury to the deceased has not been assigned to the applicant.

¶10

She further submitted that the bail application of co-accused Manish who was also identified through CCTV footage has already been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the fact that he has not been identified as the principal offender who discharged his firearm causing the death of the deceased and his bail order has been annexed at page-91 to the paper book and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him.

¶11

She further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is however having criminal history of 14 other cases but his entire

¶12

criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and out of 14 cases, 11 cases were of theft and in all the cases, applicant is on bail.

¶13

She further submitted that law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents of an accused his bail application should not be dismissed.

¶14

She further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 2.4.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant and other co-accused were identified through CCTV footage and therefore, it cannot be said that they are innocent but he fairly conceded that role of causing injury has not been assigned to the applicant and co-accused Manish who was also identified through CCTV footage has been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶16

Learned AGA however further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 14 other cases but he could not dispute the fact that out of 14 cases, 11 cases were of theft and in all the cases, applicant is on bail and in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last more than a year.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

However, it reflects that nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation through CCTV footage the name of the accused persons including applicant were disclosed but even according to the prosecution applicant has not caused any injury to the deceased.

¶19

Further from the record, it reflects that co-accused Manish was also identified through CCTV footage and he has already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by making observation that he has not been identified as a principal offender who discharged his firearm causing the death of the deceased and as far as facts of the case is concerned, case of applicant is at par with him.

¶20

Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 14 other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and from its perusal, it reflects that

¶21

out of 14 cases, 11 cases were of theft and in all the cases, applicant is on bail.

¶22

Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that ordinarily, the bail application of an accused should not be withheld on the basis of his criminal antecedents.

¶23

Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 2.4.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

¶24

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant - Atul, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶32

Order Date :- 18.4.2025

¶33

Ankita

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul v. State of U.P.

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

Sonu vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Prasad Rajak vs State of U.P.

Makardhwaj Bhoi vs State of Up

Akash vs State of U.P.

Mohd Irfan vs State of U.P.

Ritik Sonkar vs State of U.P.