Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27115

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2423 of 2025

Applicant :- Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh,Dhananjay Singh,Shivam Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 344 of 2024 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Khiron, District Raebareli.

¶8

As per contents of FIR which does not include name of applicant, allegations have been levelled of having executed a fabricated sale deed in favour of the informant by impersonating actual owner.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor is there any allegation levelled against him. It is submitted that applicant's name has been included only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of Niyaj and Shakeel who are also not named in the F.I.R. but had alleged that applicant provided false Aadhar Cards. It is submitted that such a statement is inadmissible as evidence while the applicant who has explained his previous criminal history is already under incarceration since 2^nd February, 2025.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application but does not dispute the said facts.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that applicant is not nominated in the F.I.R. and his name has been included on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-

¶12

accused who are also not named in the F.I.R. The applicant is not indicated either as a vendor, vendee or a beneficiary of the transaction. Previous criminal history has been explained.

¶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

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi involved in the 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶21

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

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

¶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 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 in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Satish

¶25

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

Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

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

Pankaj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Amar Bahadur @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kailash Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shoeb @ Roofi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.