Mahipal Singh vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12264

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2371 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahipal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 462 of 2003, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was selected on the post of Lecturer (Chemistry) in Kishan Inter College, Jahangirpur, Moradabad on the basis of select list issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Chayan Board. Subsequently, it transpired that the said select list was a forged document. Counsel for the applicant contends that he has neither manipulated nor forged any documents. On the basis of select list the applicant joined at the institution concerned. Subsequently, the applicant was again selected in fresh selection proceedings. The applicant is in jail since 04.12.2024, having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that at this stage, there is no substantive evidence to establish that the applicant forged the select list. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than a month and

¶11

after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Mahipal Singh , involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Manish Kr

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahipal Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahipal Singh v. State of U.P.

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

Shiva vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vimlesh Beldar vs State of U.P.

Satish vs State of U.P.

Rajeev vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anshuman Singh vs State of U.P.