Sumit Kanaujia v. The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

1. Heard Amit Srivastava, Abhishek Chaubey, Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Km. Saumya Tiwari learned counsel(s) for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of the present applicant, same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Sumit Kanaujia) is languishing in jail since 24.2.2025 in Case Crime No.0053 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Kakori District-Lucknow. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein, the allegation of assault, beating and firing has been attributed to four accused persons including the present applicant but during the course of investigation, the culpability of the three more persons, namely, Anshu Yadav @ Kali, Ranjeet Kumar and Neeraj Yadav @ Pujari has been surfaced attributing them the role of companion/friends of main accused person. Since those persons were not named in the FIR and nothing 2 BAIL No. 8376 of 2025 incriminating was recovered from them, therefore, this Court granted bail to the aforesaid accused persons on 07.05.2025, 19.05.2025 & 30.05.2025 in Crl.Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3924/2025, 4268/2025 & 4920/2025. While granting bail to the co-accused Neerraj @ Pujari, this Court considered in para-7 that such accused person is having criminal history of 12 cases.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 which is the statement of the complainant/informant wherein he has levelled general allegation of assault, beating and firing against all accused persons but specific role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused/main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu saying that such person has fired upon his brother-in-law (deceased) two shots, one shot inflicted near the Ear and second inflicted upon the back, resultant thereof, his brother-in-law (deceased) Ankit Lodhi fell down on the earth and he succumbed to such injuries during treatment.

6. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexur-4 which is the statement of eye witness, namely, Abrar, the shop owner where the alleged incident took place. In his statement, he has not levelled any specific allegation against any one about firing but has stated that out of those co-accused persons, any one accused person had fired upon the deceased Ankit Lodhi, therefore, Ms. Kapil has stated informant/complainant has attributed specific role to the main accused Golu Yadav @Himanshu regarding firing and the eye witness has not seen the specific person who has fired upon the deceased, therefore, the case of the present applicant may be treated similar to those accused persons, who have been granted bail. She has also stated that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant rather the weapon/country made pistol was recovered on the pointing out of main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu. She has also stated that one of co-accused Neeraj @ Pujari is having criminal history of 12 cases, who has been granted bail and the present applicant is having criminal history of two cases, one case in SC/ST, Act and second is under Sections 323 & 504 and in both the cases, he has been enlarged on bail. On account of aforesaid two cases and the present case, the Gangster Act has been imposed against the present applicant. Learned counsel for the 3 BAIL No. 8376 of 2025 applicant has further submitted that if, the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misused the liberty of bail, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail by submitting that though the co- accused persons, who have been granted bail by this Court, were not named in the FIR, whereas, the present applicant is named in the FIR. They have further submitted that the present applicant is aggressor inasmuch as the dispute arose after the present applicant slapped one Kunal, friends of the deceased.

8. On being asked from both the learned counsel for the parties, as to whether any incriminating material has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant, they have stated that so far no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the Annexure- 2 which is the statement of the complainant/informant wherein the specific role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused/main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu, Annexur -4 which is the statement of eye witness, namely, Abrar, the shop owner where the alleged incident took place, wherein he has not levelled any specific allegation against anyone about firing but has stated that out of those co-accused persons, Neeraj @ Pujari, one of the accused person had fired upon the deceased, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant rather the weapon/country made pistol was recovered on the pointing out of main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu; 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 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.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Sumit Kanaujia be released on bail in the aforesaid 4 BAIL No. 8376 of 2025 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. September 3, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Amit Srivastava, Abhishek Chaubey, Anoop Kumar Srivastava, Km. Saumya Tiwari learned counsel(s) for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of the present applicant, same is taken on record.

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Sumit Kanaujia) is languishing in jail since 24.2.2025 in Case Crime No.0053 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station- Kakori District-Lucknow. He has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, wherein, the allegation of assault, beating and firing has been attributed to four accused persons including the present applicant but during the course of investigation, the culpability of the three more persons, namely, Anshu Yadav @ Kali, Ranjeet Kumar and Neeraj Yadav @ Pujari has been surfaced attributing them the role of companion/friends of main accused person. Since those persons were not named in the FIR and nothing 2 BAIL No. 8376 of 2025 incriminating was recovered from them, therefore, this Court granted bail to the aforesaid accused persons on 07.05.2025, 19.05.2025 & 30.05.2025 in Crl.Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3924/2025, 4268/2025 & 4920/2025. While granting bail to the co-accused Neerraj @ Pujari, this Court considered in para-7 that such accused person is having criminal history of 12 cases.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-2 which is the statement of the complainant/informant wherein he has levelled general allegation of assault, beating and firing against all accused persons but specific role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused/main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu saying that such person has fired upon his brother-in-law (deceased) two shots, one shot inflicted near the Ear and second inflicted upon the back, resultant thereof, his brother-in-law (deceased) Ankit Lodhi fell down on the earth and he succumbed to such injuries during treatment.

6. Further attention has been drawn towards Annexur-4 which is the statement of eye witness, namely, Abrar, the shop owner where the alleged incident took place. In his statement, he has not levelled any specific allegation against any one about firing but has stated that out of those co-accused persons, any one accused person had fired upon the deceased Ankit Lodhi, therefore, Ms. Kapil has stated informant/complainant has attributed specific role to the main accused Golu Yadav @Himanshu regarding firing and the eye witness has not seen the specific person who has fired upon the deceased, therefore, the case of the present applicant may be treated similar to those accused persons, who have been granted bail. She has also stated that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant rather the weapon/country made pistol was recovered on the pointing out of main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu. She has also stated that one of co-accused Neeraj @ Pujari is having criminal history of 12 cases, who has been granted bail and the present applicant is having criminal history of two cases, one case in SC/ST, Act and second is under Sections 323 & 504 and in both the cases, he has been enlarged on bail. On account of aforesaid two cases and the present case, the Gangster Act has been imposed against the present applicant. Learned counsel for the 3 BAIL No. 8376 of 2025 applicant has further submitted that if, the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misused the liberty of bail, shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the aforesaid bail by submitting that though the co- accused persons, who have been granted bail by this Court, were not named in the FIR, whereas, the present applicant is named in the FIR. They have further submitted that the present applicant is aggressor inasmuch as the dispute arose after the present applicant slapped one Kunal, friends of the deceased.

8. On being asked from both the learned counsel for the parties, as to whether any incriminating material has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant, they have stated that so far no incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the Annexure- 2 which is the statement of the complainant/informant wherein the specific role of firing has been attributed to the co-accused/main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu, Annexur -4 which is the statement of eye witness, namely, Abrar, the shop owner where the alleged incident took place, wherein he has not levelled any specific allegation against anyone about firing but has stated that out of those co-accused persons, Neeraj @ Pujari, one of the accused person had fired upon the deceased, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant rather the weapon/country made pistol was recovered on the pointing out of main accused Golu Yadav @ Himanshu; 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 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.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant Sumit Kanaujia be released on bail in the aforesaid 4 BAIL No. 8376 of 2025 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. September 3, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench