Munna Singh Alias Sugriv Singh Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130091

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25508 of 2025

Applicant :- Munna Singh Alias Sugriv Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi,Harsh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Harsh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 46A of 2006 (FIR No. 45/2006), under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Sikandarpur, District Ballia, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 against as many as 151 accused including applicant and as per allegation, applicant and others misappropriated the public fund relates to Sampurn Gramin Rojgar Yojana but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false.

¶10

He further submitted that applicant was Block Pramukh at the time of alleged misappropriation of public fund and he was not having any concern with distribution of funds relating to Sampurn Gramin Rojgar Yojana.

¶11

He further submitted that number of public servants including Block Development Authority either have been released on anticipatory bail or on bail.

¶12

He further submitted that co-accused Harishchandra Prasad, Block Development Officer has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court and his order has been annexed at page-88 of the

¶13

paper book and as Block Development Officer has been released on anticipatory, therefore, applicant who was Block Pramukh may be released on bail.

¶14

He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but in that case, he has been acquitted.

¶15

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 25.5.2025.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

From the record, it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 against 151 persons including applicant and applicant was arrested on 25.5.2025 and thereafter chargesheet was submitted on 9.6.2025 and therefore, investigation of the case continued for more than one and half decades.

¶19

13.Further, there is no allegation that applicant during investigation did not co-operate with the investigation.

¶20

Further, from the record it reflects, on the basis of general allegations all the accused have been made accused in the present matter including applicant and one such co-accused Harishchandra Prasad, Block Development Officer when approached this Court to release him on anticipatory bail then this Court was pleased to enlarge him on anticipatory bail and being Block Pradhan, case of applicant, prima facie, appears to be on better footing than coaccused Harishchandra Prasad.

¶21

Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of one another case but in that case, he has been acquitted.

¶22

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purposes.

¶23

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on

¶24

bail.

¶25

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant- Munna Singh Alias Sugriv Singh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶32

Order Date :- 4.8.2025

¶33

Ankita

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munna Singh Alias Sugriv Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Singh Alias Sugriv 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