Allahabad High Court
Prakhar Shukla @ Gappu And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ... on 25 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16988
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2519 of 2025
Applicant :- Prakhar Shukla @ Gappu And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rudra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court on behalf of applicant is taken on record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.135 of 2021, under Section 2(b)(1)/3 U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S.- Fardhan, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
3. It has been submitted that as per gang chart, only one case namely case crime No. 141 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has been instituted against the applicants on which they are already enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 2106 of 2025 and 1895 of 2025.
4. It is submitted that the applicant No.1, Prakhar Shukla was subsequently indicated as involved in case crime No. 142 of 2020 under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act in which he has already been enlarged on bail in bail application No. 773 of 2025. The applicants are under incarceration since 15th November, 2021.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that applicants have already been enlarged on bail in the cases in which they have been shown involved.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicants have already been enlarged on bail in all the cases filed against him as averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application and therefore conditions indicated in Section 19(4) of U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 stand complied with at this stage, therefore the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicants Prakhar Shukla @ Gappu and Prashant Shukla involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicants 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.
(ii) The applicants 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 269 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) 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 209 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
(iv) The applicants 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 351 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.3.2025
prabhat
