Allahabad High Court
Lavesh Gaur vs State Of U.P. on 2 September, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154441
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23017 of 2023
Lavesh Gaur
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Singh, Bipin Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Saurabh Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of U.P.
2-The instant second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Lavesh Gaur with a prayer to release him on bail in S.T. No. 1344 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 364 I.P.C., Police Station-Bansgaon, District-Gorakhpur during the pendency of trial.
3-First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 13.03.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13265 of 2022.
4-On 29.08.2025, following order was passed by this Court :-
"On the matter being taken up, Mr. Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. representing the State are present but Mr. Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the first informant is not present to address the Court whereas this second bail application is pending since 07.05.2023.
Let this matter be listed on 02.09.2025.
It is made clear that on the next date, the matter shall not be adjourned and shall be taken up at the first call. "
5-Today on the matter being taken up, none appears on behalf of the complainant to address the Court, therefore, this Court proceeds with the matter.
6-It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant-Shivkumar Vishwakarma has lodged an F.I.R. on 06.05.2021 against unknown person for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. regarding missing of his nephew, namely, Alok Vishwakarma since 04.05.2021. It is next argued that on the day of lodging of F.I.R., the dead body of the deceased (Alok Vishwakarma) was recovered. Since the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person and there was no eye witness of the incident, therefore, service of sniffer dogs was taken, who from the place of recovery of dead body went to the house of the applicant and on the basis of sniffer dog's indication, applicant along with his mother, father and younger brother, namely, Seema, Gauri Shankar and Vipin have been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2021 but till date, out of twenty prosecution witnesses only four prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court by 26.07.2024 and the trial of the applicant is not proceeding effectively on account of non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses on the dates fixed before the trial court. In this regard, it is pointed out that after the evidence of PW-4, 09.08.2024, 21.08.2024, 07.06.2024, 21.06.2024, 03.07.2024, 21.08.2024, 02.09.2024, 16.09.2024, 27.09.2024, 10.10.2024, 23.10.2024, 06.11.2024, 20.11.2024, 04.12.2024, 18.12.2024, 01.01.2025, 13.01.2025, 27.01.2025, 10.02.2025, 24.02.2025, 10.03.2025, 24.03.2025, 07.04.2025, 21.04.2025, 03.05.2025, 13.05.2025, 23.05.2025, 03.06.2025, 10.06.2025, 23.06.2025 and 07.07.2025 were the dates fixed but on the said dates, no prosecution witnesses have appeared before the trial court, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7-Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant but does not dispute the factum of the case as argued on behalf of the applicant.
8-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is no dispute that there is no eye witness of the incident. The applicant was apprehended by the police on the indication given by sniffer dog. The Apex Court in the case of Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju alias Ramesh V. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 205 has held that "the evidence based on sniffer dogs has inherent frailties. The possibility of error on the part of the dog or its master is the first among them. The possibility of misunderstanding between the dog and its master is close to its heels. The possibility of misrepresentation or a wrong inference from the behavior of the dog could not be ruled out". Thereafter in Dinesh Borthakur V. State of Assam, (2008) 5 SCC 697, referring to Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju (Supra) case, the Apex Court further held that "the law is well settled that while the services of sniffer dog may be taken for the purpose of investigation, its faculties cannot be taken as evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt of an accused". I also find that the trial of the applicant is being delayed by the prosecution whereas in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, speedy trial is a legal right of the accused.
9-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the order sheet of the trial court, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail on the ground of his long detention and delay in his trial. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
10-Let the applicant-Lavesh Gaur, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That 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.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.
11-In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
(Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.) September 2, 2025 Saurabh
