[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Shubham vs State Of U.P. on 12 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:112470
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5817 of 2025
Shubham
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Ashutosh Singh, Narendra Singh, Neetu, Sandeep Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar, G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Shri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Bijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.
The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 409 of IPC, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motive. The FIR which has been lodged against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant has committed fraud to extent of Rs. 9,53,714/-. The complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime has not been established and the applicant is not the beneficiary of a single penny and has nothing to do with the offence alleged. The applicant has no criminal antecedents except the present case.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is in custody since 29.12.2024. The charge sheet has already been submitted on 29.12.2024 and the court concerned has also taken cognizance of the same on 24.02.2025. The charges against the applicant were framed on 06.05.2025 and thereafter the case is being fixed for prosecution evidence but till date not a single witness has came forward in support of the prosecution case. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the court to Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. corresponding Section 480(6) of the BNSS to submit that where a case is triable by magistrate and the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person is liable to be admitted to bail if he has been in custody during the whole of the said period, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the Magistrate otherwise directs. It is thus argued that in the case at hand since the trial has not been concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence as is borne out from the order sheet the applicant stands entitled to the benefit of Section 480(6) BNSS and is liable to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that the Investigating Officer during the investigation has collected bank details and mobile number of the application and the name of the applicant has surfaced. Further recoveries of incriminating materials have been made from the possession of the applicant and as such the applicant is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. Learned AGA, however, could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant stands entitled to the benefit of Section 480(6) BNSS.
I, have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. Section 480(6) BNSS read as under:-
"437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. -
....................
(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."
The provision of sub-section (6) of Section 480 of BNSS can certainly be said to have been inserted with an intention to speed up the trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an under trial prisoner for a prolonged time. The stage contemplated under this sub Section i.e. 437(6) is after filing of charge sheet and framing of charge when trial commences and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence. The provision Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. came to be interpreted by the Apex Court recently in the case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 223 where their Lordships in Para 17 and 18 of the judgment observed as under:-
" 17. This Court is of a considered view that applications under Section 437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of the accused by the Court concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of evidence e.g. where the case depends on documentary evidence Criminal Appeal No.818/2025@SLP (Crl.) No.1314/2025 10 which is already collected; where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by the accused; where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to the sentence prescribed for the offence for which he is tried. Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail.
18. Differently put, where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution of India and sought to be Criminal Appeal No.818/2025@SLP (Crl.) No.1314/2025 11 protected by insertion of sub-section (6) to Section 437 of the Code by the legislature."
Considering the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above and taking note of the observations made therein, all the above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on merit of case the Court is of the opinion that, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant, Shubham, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vibha Singh
