Allahabad High Court
Shiv Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 24 March, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16599
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2448 of 2025
Applicant :- Shiv Pratap Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Suruchi Tripathi,Tanmay Krishna Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard Mr. Nandit Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tanmay Krishna Srivastava & Ms. Suruchi Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 409 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 3(5) BNS, P.S. Vibhuti Khand District Lucknow.
3. As per contents of First Information Report, allegations levelled against applicant is of obtaining loans from Finance Companies and Banks by submitting forged and fabricated documents. It is submitted in the FIR that upon information received by the S.T.F. from police informants, the applicant alongwith co-accused was apprehended and certain documents were recovered from him including mobile phones, Cheque-books, Pass-books and ATM Cards as well as documents indicating sanction of loan to certain persons.
4. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there is not even a whisper with regard to any investigation pertaining to forgery alleged to have been committed with regard to documents supplied by the applicant for the purposes of obtaining loan. It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged only on the basis of extra-judicial confessional statement of the applicant. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in a hurried manner without even completing investigation. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 20.11.2024 and although there was a previous criminal history prior to 2009 but the applicant does not have any information with regard to same.
5. Learned AGA has opposed bail application with the submission that the contents of FIR itself clearly indicate the aspect of recovery against the applicant of loan sanction papers of persons other than the applicant. On the basis of instructions, however, it is admitted that investigation with regard to other co-accused including employees of the financial institutions and banks concerned still ongoing. As per instructions, the applicant does not have any other previous criminal history.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the contents of FIR, it appears that the applicant has been apprehended only on the basis of alleged confessional statement made before the police authorities and on the basis of articles recovered from him at the time of arrest, which took place due to information supplied by the police informant. It appears that investigation in the aforesaid matter is still ongoing although charge-sheet with regard to applicant has been filed without indicating any investigation pertaining to documents allegedly fabricated by applicant for purposes of obtaining loan. The applicant is under incarceration since 20.11.2024 and his previous criminal history, if any, has already been explained.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant-Shiv Pratap Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant 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. 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 269 BNS.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.
(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 351 BNSS. 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.
Order Date :- 24.3.2025
Satish
