Dr. Indrajeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16078

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2375 of 2025

Applicant :- Dr. Indrajeet Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Shivendra S Singh Rathore,Bhavesh Chandel,Sachin Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party.

¶7

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.-15 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of Bhartiya Naya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

As per contents of first information report, applicant is Manager/ Managing Director of Gyan Institute of Medical Sciences, Ambedkar Nagar and has allegedly submitted fabricated documents which upon verification were found to be forged.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and has adverted to inquiry report dated 31.01.2025, which is the basis of first information report to submit that the documents allegedly forged are in fact fire no objection certificate and sanctioned map of the building.

¶10

It is submitted that allegations levelled in the FIR, ex-facie do not make out a case against the applicant. It is also submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mukund Das Gujarati & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Anr.; passed in Application U/s 482 No.9417 of 2006.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶12

appearing on behalf of opposite party has opposed the bail application with the submission that documents submitted by applicant on behalf of Institute, upon verification were found to be fabricated thereby attracting the sections indicated against applicant. It however admitted that there no previous criminal history of applicant.

¶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

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, without subject to evidence, particularly the allegations levelled in the first information report, allegations indicated do not explicitly indicate the documents which are allegedly forged. However the first information report refers the minutes of meeting dated 31.01.2025, which indicate alleged forgery of the fire NOC and the sanctioned map of the building.

¶17

The aspect of whether the sections imputed against applicant would be attracted as per allegations levelled in the FIR is subject matter of trial.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let applicant Dr. Indrajeet Singh , involved in 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:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 269 B.N.S.S.

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 B.N.S.S.

¶23

(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 351 B.N.S.S.. 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.

¶24

Order Date : - 20.3.2025 Subodh/-

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Arvind Kumar @ Taiyan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sahil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko.

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

Shyam Dhar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Bhanu Datt vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Ram Baran Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others