Sani Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30201

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2397 of 2025 Applicant :- Sani Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anilesh Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Diwakar Prasad Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

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

¶6

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.646 of 2023 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶7

As per contents of first information report, applicant as well as coaccused were allegedly instrumental in investment of a substantial amount of money by informant on false pretext of execution of sale deed in favour of informant once plots in question were allotted in favour of persons, namely, Arvind and Prem Nath Sahu who were introduced to informant as allottees of the plots. It is stated in the F.I.R. that upon enquiry, informant came to know that there is no such agreement between Lucknow Development Authority and the said persons.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from a perusal of F.I.R. itself in which there is no active role assigned to applicant in making any promise or allurement on informant. It is submitted that applicant has been nominated only on the basis that he is son of one of the accused Rajendra Singh. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one of the accused Rajendra Singh. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case against applicant has already been explained.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that contents of first information report clearly indicate complicity of applicant in deceiving informant. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that charge sheet has been filed against applicant on that basis. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

¶10

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 :-

¶11

"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

¶12

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."

¶13

"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."

¶14

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 general allegations have been levelled against applicant of being a coconspirator with regard to allegation of deceiving informant. There does not appear to be any active role indicated against applicant in allegedly deceiving informant. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of charge sheet also admits that there is no deposit of any amount in the account of applicant. Previous criminal history of one case against applicant has been explained. 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.

¶15

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let applicant Sani Singh , 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:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 kvg/-

¶22

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

Sani Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sani Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Ikram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Ritesh Kumar Singh Vs Abhay Singh

Gufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Zannatunnisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Pawan Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Annexe Lko.