High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Upendra Narayan Shukla @ Chote Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Jay Prakash Singh Vats, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of informant/complainant, same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2025 in Case Crime No.0042 of 2025, under Section 105 & 238 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a matter of fact, the victim (since deceased) died on account of electrocutions on 21.02.2025 and information to this fact has been noted in the Rojnamcha dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure-1). The aforesaid information has been given by the complainant to the police and in such information no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant. However, the impugned FIR has been lodged on 03.03.2025 against the present applicant on the allegation that the incident in question took place in the plot of the present applicant and he put the dead body of the victim in one another plot and was with the complainant to trace out the location of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that this is an admitted case that the dead body has not been found in the plot of the present applicant. No one has seen the applicant to dispose of the dead body of the victim putting the same in another plot. The delay of about ten days has not been explained by the complainant. As the matter of fact, the FIR has been lodged on the basis of suspicion. The present applicant is having criminal history of one case but in that case he has been acquitted as recitals to this has been mentioned in para 19 of the bail application. Chargesheet has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that he has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid the bail application by submitting that at time of investigation one fact emerges that the fencing of the plot of the present applicant was having electric current in the day time also and the victim received such injury from the fencing of the plot of the present applicant, therefore, this bail application is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the dead body of the deceased has not been found in the plot of the present applicant, no one has seen the applicant to dispose of the dead body of the victim putting the same in another plot, the delay of about ten days has not been explained by the complainant, the FIR has been lodged on the basis of suspicion, criminal history of one case but in that case applicant has been acquitted; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant (Upendra Narayan Shukla @ Chote Shukla) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and 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. (ii) 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 under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) 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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Upendra Narayan Shukla @ Chote Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Jay Prakash Singh Vats, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of informant/complainant, same is taken on record.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2025 in Case Crime No.0042 of 2025, under Section 105 & 238 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District-Pratapgarh. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a matter of fact, the victim (since deceased) died on account of electrocutions on 21.02.2025 and information to this fact has been noted in the Rojnamcha dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure-1). The aforesaid information has been given by the complainant to the police and in such information no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant. However, the impugned FIR has been lodged on 03.03.2025 against the present applicant on the allegation that the incident in question took place in the plot of the present applicant and he put the dead body of the victim in one another plot and was with the complainant to trace out the location of the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that this is an admitted case that the dead body has not been found in the plot of the present applicant. No one has seen the applicant to dispose of the dead body of the victim putting the same in another plot. The delay of about ten days has not been explained by the complainant. As the matter of fact, the FIR has been lodged on the basis of suspicion. The present applicant is having criminal history of one case but in that case he has been acquitted as recitals to this has been mentioned in para 19 of the bail application. Chargesheet has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that he has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the aforesaid the bail application by submitting that at time of investigation one fact emerges that the fencing of the plot of the present applicant was having electric current in the day time also and the victim received such injury from the fencing of the plot of the present applicant, therefore, this bail application is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the dead body of the deceased has not been found in the plot of the present applicant, no one has seen the applicant to dispose of the dead body of the victim putting the same in another plot, the delay of about ten days has not been explained by the complainant, the FIR has been lodged on the basis of suspicion, criminal history of one case but in that case applicant has been acquitted; and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant (Upendra Narayan Shukla @ Chote Shukla) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer to cooperate in the investigation and shall further remain present to cooperate in the investigation as and when the Investigating Team calls him to appear and if the charge-sheet is filed against him he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and 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. (ii) 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 under Section 229-A IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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/208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) 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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicants shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench