Allahabad High Court
Surya Indramani Singh Alias Rahul Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 October, 2025
Author: Santosh Rai
Bench: Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188779
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 8677 of 2025
Surya Indramani Singh Alias Rahul Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Indrajeet Chaurasia, Premnendra Singh, Sumit Mubai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Khuldabad, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.. He has not promised to provide government job in lieu of Rs.4 lac. There is no evidence regarding the fact the applicant has received the aforesaid amount. The applicant has two criminal history except the present case which has been explained in para 27 of the bail application. It is further submitted that co-accused Ramji Singh alias Balram Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 B.N.S.S. No.2741 of 2025. Counsel for the applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.
7. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.
8. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
9. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
10. Having regard to the submissions made, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, and the fact that at this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence, investigation has been completed, charge sheet has been filed, the applicant had co-operated in the investigation, the applicant has been summoned by the concerned court, no custodial interrogation is required, the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
11. In the event of arrest, the applicant Surya Indramani Singh Alias Rahul Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquired with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.
12. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.
13. The application stands disposed of.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
October 28, 2025
Asha
