High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134998 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21462 of 2025 Applicant :- Uma Shankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Girja Shanker Sen,Krishna Dutt Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. (1) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record. (2) By means of this bail application, applicant Uma Shankar, who is involved in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025, under Sections 140(2), 61(2) BNS, police station Kotwali Nagar, district Banda, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial. (3) Brief facts of the case, which are required to be stated are as under:- (i) Harish Katiyar had gone missing since the night of 17/18.01.2025, regarding which a missing report was lodged by his family members on 18.01.2025, which was registered at case crime no. 56 of 2025, under Section 140(2) BNS, police station Baradari, district Bareilly.
Legal Reasoning
(ii) Later, a first information report was also got lodged by Ranish Katiyar on 19.01.2025 at case crime no. 57 of 2025, under Section 140(2) BNS, police station Kotwali City, district Banda against unknown person stating inter alia that his brother-in-law (jija) Harish Katiyar is missing since the night of 17/18.01.2025, regarding which missing report was lodged on 18.01.2025. Now it is revealed that Anoop Katiyar is also with Harish. Today on 19.01.2025, Harish Katiyar's wife Jyoti Katiyar was called from Harish Katiyar's phone at about 12.08 O'clock and money was demanded. From Anoop Katiyar's phone, his wife Kiran Katiyar was called and money was demanded. Due to which, he suspects that Harish Katiyar has been abducted for money.
Legal Reasoning
(4) Main substratum of arguments of learned counsel for the applicant 2 BAIL No. 21462 of 2025 is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The victim was recovered on 21.05.2025 but he has not taken the name of the applicant in his statements under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. He further submits that there is no allegation against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that co- accused Akash has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.06.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17807 of 2025, hence the applicant is also liable to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedent to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.02.2025 and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial. (5) Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that on 21.01.2025, the victim was recovered from the house of one Udit and from the spot, three persons, namely, Udit, Umashankar and Lali were apprehended by the police, who have made the victim Harish Katiyar hostage in the house of Udit and they were keeping eyes outside the house. After recovery of the victim, they have also disclosed the name of other persons, who were associated with them and indulged in abduction and demanding ransom adopting different modus operandi with their different role. Thereafter, a separate F.I.R. was lodged on 21.01.2025 at case crime no. 57 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 109, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS, 2023 and Sections 3, 25, 27 Arms Act against 11 accused persons, namely, Anoop Katiyar, Ankit @ Vineet Katiyar, Shahid, Khemendra, Akash, Lalit, Rajat @ Umesh, Veeru @ Veerpal, Umashankar (present applicant), Udit and Lali. Much emphasis has been given by contending that the victim in his statement under Section 180 and 183 BNSS has disclosed the entire incident, which has happened with him giving vivid description of the same. Though he has named Anoop, Ankit, Rajat and Khemendra but he has also stated that other persons were also associated with them who have made him hostage and all the accused persons in collusion with each other made the victim confined in a room of house of Udit even he was not allowed to go out to attend natural call. They have compelled him to do all these things in a room where he was confined. Hence, bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. in its entirety, (6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter that abductee/victim-Harish was recovered from the house of Udit by the police, who was kept hostage under the supervision of Udit, Umashankar (applicant) and Lali. All the three persons were also arrested at the spot. Key of the room, in which abductee was kept in dispute is not that find it I 3 BAIL No. 21462 of 2025 was given by Udit to police. After interrogation, Udit, Umashankar (applicant) and Lali have disclosed the names of other co-accused as well as modus-operandi adopted by them. Thereafter in follow-up action, other co-accused have also arrested in the manner as mentioned in F.I.R. Victim has also made allegation against the applicant along with other co-accused. So far as submission of learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Akash has been granted bail in Case Crime No. 57 of 2025 vide order dated 06.06.2025 is concerned, it is relevant to mention that he has been granted bail considering the fact that victim in his statement has not named him, whereas the applicant was arrested at the spot and the allegation against the applicant is that victim was kept hostage under the supervision of the applicant as well as Udit and Lali, hence case of Akash is distinguishable from the case of the applicant, therefore, benefit of order dated 06.06.2025 cannot be extended to the applicant. (7) Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. (8) Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (9) It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial. (10) However, it is open for the applicant to move second bail application after recording the statement of the victim/abductee before the trial Court. (11) A copy of this order be sent to the victim/ abductee for information at the earliest. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Shubham Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM KUMAR AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad