Nanku @ Lala @ Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Nanku @ Lala @ Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Nanku @ Lala @ Ram Kumar to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(vi) imposed in the interest of justice.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Nanku @ Lala @ Ram Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 115/2024 under Sections 310(2), 317(4) of BNS, Police Station Maharajganj Tarai, District Balrampur, ought to be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

On due consideration of the absence of an independent witness of the recovery, the delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant not being named in the FIR, his explained criminal antecedents, his incarceration since 15.12.2024, and the grant of bail to the co-accused Awesh and Mohd. Asalam by this court, the court found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

Key takeaways

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(vi), including that failure to attend trial may attract Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code, and misuse of bail liberty attracting proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. followed by non-appearance may attract proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 16; Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:7015; Order Date 4.2.2025. Applicant Nanku @ Lala @ Ram Kumar (Counsel: Gyanendra Pathak) sought bail in Case Crime No. 115/2024 under Sections 310(2), 317(4) of BNS, Police Station Maharajganj Tarai, District Balrampur; the State of U.P. (G.A.) opposed the prayer. Counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged after a delay of six days, the applicant was not named in it, 10 alleged stolen goats were recovered from the joint possession of the accused persons without any independent witness, the recovery was false, and the applicant's criminal antecedents were explained in para 12 of the bail application and para 3 of the supplementary affidavit; the applicant was in jail since 15.12.2024, and parity was sought with co-accused Awesh and Mohd. Asalam, already granted bail (orders filed jointly as Annexure No.9). Holding (para 11): considering the absence of an independent witness of the recovery, the delay in lodging the FIR, the applicant not being named in the FIR, his explained antecedents, his custody since 15.12.2024 and the bail already granted to the co-accused, and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail (paras 12-14). Relief: release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(vi) — no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure; undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present (default treatable as abuse of bail liberty); presence before the trial court on each date fixed, personally or through counsel (absence without sufficient cause actionable under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code); and misuse of bail liberty leading to proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. with failure to appear exposing the applicant to proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7015

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 906 of 2025

Applicant :- Nanku @ Lala @ Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

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

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. FIR has been lodged after a delay of six days. The applicant is not named in the FIR. From the joint possession of the accused persons, 10 alleged stolen goats have been recovered. The recovery is false. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The applicant has explained his criminal antecedent in para 12 of the bail application and para 3 of supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.12.2024.

The co-accused Awesh and Mohd. Asalam have been granted bail vide orders filed jointly as Annexure No.9. The applicant seeks parity.

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

On due consideration to the fact that there is no independent witness of the recovery; delay in lodging the FIR; the applicant is not named in the FIR; he has explained his criminal antecedents, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.12.2024, the co-accused named above have been granted bail by this court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 115/2024, under

Sections 310(2), 317(4) of BNS, Police Station - Maharajganj Tarai, District - Balrampur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant 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.

(vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 kkb/

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