Gudiya & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Jul 2025
- Bench
- KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC-LKO:44350
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Learned counsel for the applicants argues that the prosecution story is highly improbable and lacks credibility. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicants are not named in the FIR. The applicants have no prior criminal antecedent. The offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate. The applicants are languishing in jail since 19.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Fudaka and Kranti Devi, who were assigned similar role have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 6840 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused persons. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Operative part
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants. On due consideration to the facts that co-accused Fudaka and Kranti Devi have been enlarged on bail; there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery, the offences are triable by a Magistrate, the applicants have no criminal antecedents, and they are in custody since 19.05.2025, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicants on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicants, Gudiya and Manoj Malha, involved in Case Crime No. 127/2025, U/S-316(2), 318 (4), 303 (2), 317 (2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS, Police Station-Maharajganj, District- Raebareli be released on bail on their 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 in accordance with law.
(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 R.C.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 209; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 84; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 31 Jul 2025. The bench was KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.