Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
Khargesh Alias Golu – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 4923, 6793 of 2025
Decided on : 12-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prashant Yadav, Rajeev Kumar
For the Respondent: G.A.

The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with statutory provisions concerning the informant's right to be heard in bail proceedings, condemning misrepresentation in legal processes.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(1A) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 15A(3) - Bail applications for accused-applicants in serious offenses including sexual assault and robbery - The court emphasized the necessity of affording the informant an opportunity to be heard in bail proceedings, highlighting the violation of statutory provisions and the casual manner in which bail was previously granted. (Paras 21, 26, 34)

(B) Misrepresentation in Court - The court condemned the informant's conduct of misrepresenting facts to gain an advantage, stating that such actions pollute the course of justice and warrant dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 28, 38)

Facts of the case:
The bail applications were filed for the accused-applicants in serious criminal cases, including allegations of sexual assault and robbery. The informant had previously contested the bail orders, claiming a lack of opportunity to be heard, which led to intervention by the Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the informant had misused the legal process and granted bail to the applicants under certain conditions, while imposing costs on the informant for her conduct.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the informant was afforded a fair opportunity to participate in the bail proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory provisions regarding the informant's right to be heard were violated, and the integrity of the court process must be upheld.

Result: Bail applications allowed.

Table of Content
1. bail applications under various sections of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding previous bail orders and the informant's participation. (Para 5 , 6 , 21)
3. misuse of legal process by the informant. (Para 26 , 28)
4. legal principles regarding suppression of material facts. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. decision to grant bail and consequences for the informant. (Para 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

1. The instant bail applications are second bail applications moved before this Court for enlarging the applicant namely, Khargesh alias Golu on bail in Special Criminal Case No. 214 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 599 of 2021 under Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506, 392 I.P.C., Section 5 (G)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (5) A of SC/ST Act and to release the accused-applicant namely, Karan on bail in Case Crime No. 599 of 2021 under Sections 323, 363, 376-D, A, 506, 392 , 411 I.P.C. and Section 5 (G)/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (2) (5) A of SC/ST Act Police Station Khora, District Ghaziabad.

2. Vide order dated 04.04.2025, this Court had issued notice to the first informant of the case crime in the both the bail applications.

3. Office report dated 01.05.2025 shows that notice issued to the first informant has been served personally. Pursuant to which name of Sri Susheel Kumar, learned counsel has been shown in the cause list, who did not appear before this Court even in the revised call.

4. Heard Sri Prashant Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant- Khargesh alias Golu in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4923 of 2025 and Sri Narendra Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant- Karan in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6793 of 2025, Sri Chandan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants contend that this Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No.44142 of 2021 (Khargesh @ Golu Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as in Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 43380 of 2021 ( Karan Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been pleased to grant bail to the accused-applicants. He further submits that against the aforesaid order of this Court, the informant-‘X’ approached the Supreme Court and filed Criminal Appeal No. 5385 of 2024 ( ‘X’ Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another ) arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 5027 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 5386 of 2024 ( ‘X’ Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and other ) arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 5305 of 2024 respectively. The Hon’ble Apex Court heard both the appeals together and allowed the same vide order dated 13.12.2024, setting aside the orders passed by this Court and the concerned respondents (in the appeal) i.e. the present applicants were directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 30.12.2024. Pursuant to which the applicants appeared before the trial Court, who are languishing in jail.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was argued by the counsel for the ‘X’ that whether the appellant (‘X’) should have been given an opportunity of hearing and should have been made party in the bail proceedings filed by the concerned respondents before the High Court. Further it was argued that the ‘X’ has not been impleaded as party-respondent in the bail proceedings before this Court and the concerned Pubic Prosecutor had not informed the victim (‘X’) about the said proceedings. Learned counsel further argued that while allowing the appeal, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that statutory provisions contained in Section 439 (1A) of Cr.P.C. and Section 15 A(3) of the SC/ST Act have been violated and the High Court also, in the impugned order, has not considered the mandatory requirement of both the Acts and granted bail to the concerned respondents (applicants in the present case) in a very casual and cursory manner and proceeded to set aside the impugned orders. Learned counsel