Ajeet Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9056

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 90 of 2025

Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Pandey,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Misra,Satendra Kumar (Singh)

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Misra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as 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. 429 of 2024, under Section 498A/504/506/307/120-B/419/420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that in fact, being annoyed, the concocted First Information Report has been lodged by father of the victim, who is a retired Deputy SP in STF. He submits that in fact, no such incident had ever been taken place and only for giving the gravity to the incident, the story is cooked up. He also added that so far as the attempt to commit murder is concerned, there is no such medical report with respect to the same. He also submits that the whole story is the result of a matrimonial dispute and since the father of the alleged victim was posted in the police department, therefore, the serious story is narrated in the First Information Report. He also added that uptil 2024, there were only two cases criminal history of the applicant but as soon as the dispute arose between the parties, after the month of July, 2024 uptil the applicant went to jail i.e about 3 months, about 14 cases were lodged in different States of the country, on the instance of the informant and he has been implicated in all the cases, though no summon has been received as yet, as is transcribed in the paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

Adding his arguments, he submits that the police has also filed

¶11

the chargesheet without collecting the cogent piece of material, as there was no substantial evidence against him, but under the pressure, the chargesheet was filed. He next submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he has explained the criminal history in paragraph no. 6 of the supplementary affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 09.09.2024. He emphasized that since the chargesheet has been filed, as such there is no possibility of tampering the evidences or threatening the witnesses. Concluding his argument, he submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the charges are serious in nature which is apparent from the First Information Report. He added that the applicant attempted to commit murder by putting the pillow over the face of the victim. He next submits that the applicant while committing the cheat and fraud had shown himself to be having the B.Tec. degree, whereas the said course itself was introduced in the institution in the year, 2015. Further submission is that the applicant has as many as 19 cases criminal history and he is a hard core criminal, thus, he is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Learned AGA for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant and submits that after thorough investigation, it is found that the applicant was involved in committing the offence, therefore, chargesheet has been submitted against him and there is a huge criminal history, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it, prima facie, reveals that the instant case is arising out of a matrimonial dispute; it is also evident that the father of the alleged victim was the then Dy. S.P. of STF; further there is no medical report which could support the version narrated in the First Information Report regarding attempt to commit murder; this Court has also noticed the fact that the applicant has explained the criminal history and chargesheet has been filed, as such there is no possibility of tampering the evidences and there seems to be no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.09.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of

¶16

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.

¶17

Let the applicant- Ajeet Kumar Shukla 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:-

¶18

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶19

(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;

¶20

(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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 kkv/

¶25

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

Ajeet Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

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

Rajesh Kumar Yadav @ Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Satyendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

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

Dheeru @ Vivek Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Ajeet Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Abhay Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.