Siddharth Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20064

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9363 of 2024 Applicant :- Siddharth Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Kumar Pandey,Akshay Singh,Arshad Siddiqui,Devanshu Pratap Singh,Dharmendra Bahadur Singh,Shrvan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶7

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0444 of 2024, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, DistrictBarabanki.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 24.04.2024 when the applicant alongwith co-accused allegedly took away the son of informant who subsequently could not be found.

¶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 submits that the statement of PW-1, the informant and the statement of PW-2, the scriber of the FIR are recorded before the trial court, wherein the story of the prosecution has been demolished as it has been stated by the informant that the FIR was narrated on the instance of the other family members. He next submits that the scriber of the FIR has stated before the trial court that on the dictate of the investigating officer, he has written the FIR. He further added that the applicant is a friend of the missing person and under suspicion, his name has been planted in the FIR. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 14.5.2024. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will

¶10

not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

It is also submitted that in fact co-accused, namely, Anshu Kumar is said to have made a confessional statement with regard to murdering of the son of informant but the said Anshu Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Bail Application No.9898 of 2024 on 06.03.2025.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence and thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶13

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 14.5.2024; the story of the prosecution has been demolished as it has been stated by the informant that the FIR was narrated on the instance of the other family members; the scriber of the FIR has also stated before the trial court that on the dictate of the investigating officer, he has written the FIR; under suspicion, the name of the applicant has been planted in the FIR; chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Siddharth Kumar involved in

¶16

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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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;

¶19

(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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶24

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

Siddharth Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddharth Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandni Shukla @ Chandni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dr. Saqib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Satyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Aditay Singh Paliwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Gond @ Pankaj Gaud Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anothers

Mahi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.