DILEYRAM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO.
BAIL/11919/2025 · 2025-12-11
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 184119 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 184119 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11919 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the gang chart, four cases have been shown against the applicant. In all these cases, the applicants have been enlarged on bail. The bail orders are on record, Annexure No.3 filed collectively. Apart from these cases, there is no other case pending against the applicant. The applicants are in jail since
4.10.2025. The co-accused Omveer has been granted bail vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed by this court in Bail No.12260 of 2025. The applicants claim parity. It is also submitted that the applicants are ready to furnish an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Nigam, Suraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dileyram And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the co-accused, named above, has been granted bail, for the period for which they are in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.The application is allowed, on the ground of parity.
Let the applicants Dileyram and Akshay involved for the offence under Section 2(b)(1)/3 U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Nighsan, district Lakhimpur Kheri (crime No.280 of 2025) 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 and not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (iii) The applicants shall also file an undertaking in terms of requirement of Section 19(4)(b) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case or misuse the liberty of bail. (iv) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C.(now 269 BNS). Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit and proper may also be imposed. (v) In case of default of any of the conditions, it shall be open for the trial BAIL No. 11919 of 2025 2
court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. December 11, 2025 kkb/ BAIL No. 11919 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench