Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh vs The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ... on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32300
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2561 of 2025
Applicant :- Ram Singh
Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Srivastava,Prashant Dubey,Sadhana Yadav,Vishnu Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Srivastava
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Mr. Chandan Srivastava learned counsel for informant and perused the record.
This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 579 of 2023 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 352, 506 & 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya.
As per contents of FIR, the allegation levelled is that the father of applicant Ekadashi is said to have executed an agreement to sell in favour of informant on 30th July, 2022 whereafter the informant came to know that the same property has already been sold by means of sale deed dated 21st March, 2022 to one Ram Pal Das and another agreement to sell has also been executed by the said Ekadashi on 5th March, 2022 in favour of one Amit Kumar Agarwal. Allegation levelled against the applicant is of being co-conspirator.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that only an agreement to sell has been executed between the parties which does not confer any title and the informant has not filed any suit for specific performance. It is submitted that therefore the aspect of cheating is clearly not made out. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history has already been explained and is under incarceration since 25th November, 2024.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with submission that aspect of cheating is quite evident from the fact that despite the fact that applicant's father executed an agreement to sell on 5th March, 2022 in favour of one Amit Kumar Agarwal in which the applicant himself is the marginal witness, a subsequent agreement to sell has been executed in favour of applicant therefore the aspect of cheating is evident. It is further submitted that it is in fact the applicant is the mastermind since the amount paid in the account of Ekadashi was subsequently transferred into the applicant's account. It is however admitted that criminal history of 14 cases has been explained.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that primary gist of allegation levelled against the applicant is that his father executed two agreements to sell with regard to same property. It is evident that applicant has been indicated as marginal witness in both the deeds and no suit for specific performance has been filed till date. It is settled law that no title is transferred by means of an agreement to sell. However the aspect of applicant's complicity would be subject matter of evidence during trial. His previous criminal history has been explained and is under incarceration since 25th November, 2024.
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."
Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Ram 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. 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 :- 28.5.2025
prabhat
