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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10690

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 230 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sugendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Short counter affidavit filed today by Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in FIR/Case Crime No. 0310 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶10

As per the prosecution story, the applicant, while using the marksheet of Class-10th, has committed cheat and fraud for ensuring his employment in Chini Mill Limited Unit Balrampur.

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He submits that at the very inception, the applicant, while in his service, had submitted the marksheet of Class-8 and the service book, which is appended at Page 40, is also evident that Class8 marksheet is presented at the time of appointment. Further submission is that there was no occasion to place the forged High School marksheet before the department for ensuring his appointment on Class-IVth post. Further submission is that during the course of investigation, it has been said that some forge Adhar Card is also prepared and that was used for the purpose of provident fund, though the same is in the name of Surendra Singh, whereas the name of the present applicant is Sugendra Singh. He next added that the whole story is false and concocted and the same is lodged due to anonymity and the applicant was not involved in committing the offence. Next submission is that the applicant has no previous

¶12

criminal history and chargesheet has been filed filed, as such, there is no possibility of tampering the evidences. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.12.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Per contra, Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has pointed out that the High School marksheet, which was produced by the applicant, was found forged and there was apprehension that the same could have been used for the purpose of promotion. Further submission is that the fake Adhar Card was also traced out from the document of the account of provident fund of the applicant and thus he has committed cheat and fraud.

¶14

Learned AGA for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant and submits that he is not entitled for any relief.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.12.2024. This Court has also noticed the fact that minimum qualification for Class-IVth employee is Class-8the passed and the copy of the service book, which is appended alongwith the bail application, is also evident that Class-8th marksheet submitted by the applicant at the time of his induction in his service. Further, it is not understandable that why the applicant would place the High School marksheet, if minimum qualification is Class 8th. Further the Adhar Card is in the name of Surendra Singh while the name of the present applicant is Sugendra Singh, as such, there is no occasion for the applicant to use forged Adhar Card; the chargesheet has been filed, as such there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie 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

¶17

India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶18

Let the applicant- Sugendra Singh involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶19

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶20

(2) 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. He 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;

¶21

(3) 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.; and

¶22

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 kkv/

¶26

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

Sugendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. 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

Ajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Asraf @ Asraf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Rahul Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another