Allowed¶15

Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2025BAIL/2056/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed; Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 28 of 2022, P.S. SIT, Lucknow; Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 386, 506, 204 IPC and Section 7A PC Act; double sale of 35 decimal land (Gata No. 116 sa), Swami Vivekanand Vidya Mandir Gonda, Pushpa Devi, Nageena Devi, 21.08.2000; custody since 24.01.2025; FIR delayed over two decades; offences triable by magistrate; bail conditions; Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 BNSS; Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS; Section 174-A IPC/209 BNS; 2025:AHC-LKO:39496; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash released on bail in Case Crime No. 28 of 2022 subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, and compliance with conditions (i)-(vi). ¶15

Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant, Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash, in custody since 24.01.2025 in Case Crime No. 28 of 2022, should be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Court's answer

On due consideration of the submissions, the record, the applicant's custody since 24.01.2025, that the offences are triable by magistrate, the age of the applicant, and the delay of more than two decades in lodging the F.I.R., and without expressing any opinion on merits, the court found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.

¶16

Key takeaways

Release was made subject to conditions: the applicant shall not tamper with evidence, shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses, shall not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts, shall file an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed (with liability under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code, now Section 269 of BNS, for absence), and in case of misuse of bail liberty, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) may issue, with proceedings under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS) for failure to appear.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL GRANTED — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2056 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.), order dated 10.7.2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:39496). Applicant Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash, accused in Case Crime No. 28 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 386, 506, 204 I.P.C. and Section 7A of P.C. Act, P.S. SIT, District Lucknow, alleged to have sold 35 decimal of land (Gata No. 116 sa) while posing as Manager of the Executive Committee of Swami Vivekanand Vidya Mandir, Gonda to Pushpa Devi and again the same land to Nageena Devi on 21.08.2000. Bail allowed considering custody since 24.01.2025, offences being triable by magistrate, age of the applicant, and delay of more than two decades in lodging the F.I.R., without expressing any opinion on merits; release subject to personal bond and two reliable sureties and conditions including non-tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, undertaking on adjournments, attendance before the trial court, and consequences under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS), Section 229-A IPC (now Section 269 BNS) and Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS) upon misuse.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39496

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2056 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Mishra,Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Rishi Raj Mishra

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.28 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 386, 506, 204 I.P.C. and Section 7A of P.C. Act, P.S. SIT, District Lucknow.

¶10

In the prosecution case it is alleged that applicant by showing himself the Manager of Executive Committee of Swami Vivekanand Vidya Mandir, Gonda has sold the land 35 decimal (Gata No.116 sa) to one Pushpa Devi. In order to usurp, again the same land has been sold by him in favour of Nageena Devi on 21.08.2000.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that offences are triable by magistrate. The F.I.R. has been lodged after more than two decades. Applicant is 75 years old and is ailing. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 24.01.2025.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.01.2025, offences are triable by magistrate, age of the applicant, delay of more than two decades in lodging of F.I.R.

¶14

and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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 Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶22

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant

¶23

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 Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶24

Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash Shukla @ Ram Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Rajender Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko.

Bharat Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Surendra Pal Singh (Pno - 980580325) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Pradyumna Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sani Singh @ Rajneesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko