Allahabad High Court
Ram Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 30 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33454
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4897 of 2025
Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Ashish Sharma,Manav Gupta,Praveen Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.797 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.
3. As per contents of FIR in which applicant is not nominated, allegation levelled is of fabricated sale-deeds executed with regard to properties which belongs to Lucknow Development Authority in connivance with officials of the authority.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the allegations levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that applicant has neither been named in the FIR nor is there any allegation levelled against him and even after submission of charge-sheet, applicant's name was not included therein and has subsequently been added. It is submitted that the main person nominated in the FIR namely Kuldeep Kumar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.103 of 2025 while another co-accused- Hari Bahadur Singh has been enlarged on bail in Bail Application No.13368 of 2024. It is submitted that applicant is not an employee of Lucknow Development Authority and his role has still not been specified. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that during the course of investigation, it came to light that applicant used to procure original sale-deeds from the Lucknow Development Authority and forged the same whereafter fabricated sale-deeds were executed. It is submitted that applicant has a long criminal history pertaining to said sections.
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. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has neither been nominated in the FIR nor in the charge-sheet and his name has surfaced subsequently during the course of further investigation. The persons nominated in the FIR have already granted protection as indicated hereinabove. The aspect of applicant's role in the allegations levelled would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial in which applicant undertakes to cooperate. Previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Ram Bahadur Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025
Subodh/-
