Prem Chandra Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23010

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11163 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prem Chandra Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Aniket Srivastava,Prem Prakash Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rishad Murtaza,Shivendra S Singh Rathore

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State, Mr. Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for complainant whose counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

This second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 868 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki with first bail application no. 7863 of 2024 having been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.

¶10

As per contents of FIR, the applicant allegedly filed a suit before the permanent Lok Adalat which was registered as Suit No. 54 of 2018. Allegation levelled is that certain documents annexed with the plaint are forgeries.

¶11

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and as of now the only allegation levelled is of forged documents having been annexed to the plaint. It is submitted that till date there is no finding of any Court of competent jurisdiction with regard to any such forgery having been committed by applicant. It is also submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 13.06.2024 with only single prosecution witness having been examined out of a total of 12 witnesses indicated in the charge-sheet and as such there is no hope of early conclusion of trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that the alleged agreement to sell which has been annexed alongwith the plaint ex facie indicates

¶13

it to be a forged document. It is also submitted that the first bail application was deliberately dismissed as withdrawn since it was not being taken up for hearing and such withdrawn has also been done without notice to the complainant who was also being represented therein. It is also submitted that a serious offence has been committed of trying to mislead the Court concerned. It is, however, admitted that as yet evidence of PW1 is ongoing.

¶14

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 :-

¶15

"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."

¶16

"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."

¶17

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that primary gist of allegation levelled against applicant is of having annexed forged documents alongwith the plaint. Learned counsel for complainant, however, submits that the said suit has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

¶18

Nonetheless as yet only an allegation of document brought on record alongwith the plaint being a forgery has been alleged which even otherwise is an agreement to sell which does not confer any title upon any party. The aspect would require consideration of the competent Court. The applicant is under incarceration since 13.06.2024 with only the first prosecution witness being examined with eleven more prosecution witnesses remaining. Thus, there does not appear to be any hope of early conclusion of trial.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Let applicant, Prem Chandra Rai , 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:-

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Satish

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prem Chandra Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chandra Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahjad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Anarkali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Yusuf @ Yousuf Ahmad Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anikesh @ Ankesh @ Gore Pandit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Narayan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others