Madhulika vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30524

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2077 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Madhulika Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Arti Ganguly

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abdul Ahad,Abhinav Singh,Devansh Vikram Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State and Mr. Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for informant.

¶9

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.296 of 2023 under Sections 380, 406, 420, 419, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Gazipur, District Lucknow.

¶10

As per contents of first information report, applicant stands accused of manufacturing the possession letter dated 06.02.2007 and a no objection certificate dated 02.01.2009 for purposes of usurping the properties belonging to M/s Fast Builders and M/s Lekhraj Builders. Allegation also levelled is that applicant while employed by aforesaid Firms have stolen letter-heads of the Firms with which she has fabricated possession letter and no objection certificate.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against her which would be evident from fact that a Regular Suit for permanent injunction has also been filed by applicant against aforesaid Builders, which is still pending consideration. Learned counsel denies that any sale deed has been executed in favour of applicant. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of one other case pertaining to similar nature of allegations has been explained while applicant is under incarceration since 18.01.2025.

¶12

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that applicant is habitual of lodging false first information reports against Builders and their owners as well as other persons merely to extract some lucrative deal. It is submitted that applicant was instrumental in lodging as many as ten first information reports against owners and employees of the Building Firm and in which final reports have been accepted. Learned counsel for informant submits that there is grave apprehension that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, she will again implicate informant and owners of the Building Firms in another false case.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that primary allegation levelled against applicant is of fabricating possession letter and no objection certificate allegedly issued by the Building Firm. It is admitted that no sale deed or any agreement has been executed between applicant and the Building Firms. The aspect of civil litigation pending between the parties would be subject matter of consideration. Applicant's previous criminal history of one case has been explained and she is under incarceration since 08.01.20205 with charge sheet already having been filed. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Madhulika , involved in 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:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶20

(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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 kvg/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Madhulika v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhulika v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Dr. Khalid Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Ayush, Lucknow and 3 Others

Mohan Lal Vs Commissioner Faizabad and Others

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 14 Others

Aarti Vimal Vs Dilip Kumar

Rubi Singh Vs Diwakar Singh

Tatheer Jafri ( in Fir Tatheer Jafri @ Allika) and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.