Shashikala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17426

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2553 of 2025

Applicant :- Shashikala Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh 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. 271 of 2024 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station Harpalpur, District Hardoi.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the applicant along with co-accused were instrumental in execution of a sale deed. Primary allegation levelled against the applicant is that she impersonated the actual owner of the property, Smt. Sunita.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and that she has never impersonated any other person. It is submitted that the applicant has been apprehended only on the basis of confessional statement of one co-accused Govind Singh. It is submitted that only role attributed to the applicant is that her photograph was used for the purposes of execution of sale deed. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 21st February, 2025 and the investigation is still ongoing. It is submitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that photograph which was affixed to the sale deed was that of the applicant and was duly identified by the villagers as being the person whose photograph was on the sale deed thereby impersonating the actual owner Sunita. It is however admitted that applicant does not have previous criminal history.

¶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 only role attributed to the applicant is that her photograph was used for the purposes of execution of sale deed. The applicant does

¶12

not appear to be beneficiary of the transaction. It is also admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history and that the investigation is still ongoing.

¶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 Shashikala involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on 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:-

¶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

¶21

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 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 :- 26.3.2025 prabhat

¶25

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

Shashikala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikala v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Vishal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko.

Arvind Yadav Urf Fauji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Indu Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Hafijurrehman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jaikeerat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.