OM PRAKASH MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME U.P. LKO.
BAIL/4416/2025 · 2025-05-21
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 140895 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 140895 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30010 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4416 of 2025 Applicant :- Om Prakash Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Arvind Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/ Case Crime No. 79 of 2025, under section 105 of BNS, P.S.- Unchahar, District - Raebareli. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He submits that the recovery memo is evident that no electric shock machine was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He next submits that the electric wires 33 and 1/2 feet is said to be recovered though there is no independent public eye witness of the same. He next added that it is not evident from any of the record that the dead body was recovered from the field of the applicant. She submitted that the applicant is astonished that how his name has been placed in the FIR though he has never committed any offence. He further argued that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, who is languishing in jail since 08.03.2025 and there seems to be no possibility that the trial would be concluded in near future and there is a still possibility of his reform and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and injury report supports the version of the prosecution as the death of the deceased is due to injury inflicted on the body of the injured by electrocution burn. He also added that some electric wires were also recovered from the place of occurrence and thus the applicant is not
entitled for any relief. 5.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co- accused Shiv Prasad Maurya has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2924 of 2025. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that there is no recovery of electric shock machine from the possession of the applicant. Further, there is no recovery of the electric wires from the field of the applicant. This Court has also noticed the fact that there is no proof or record collected by the Investigating Officer that the body was found lying in the field of the applicant. Further the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 05.04.2025 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. 8. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Om Prakash Maurya be released on bail in aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: - (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Preeti. Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench