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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18258

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2742 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Chandra Rai,Ashutosh Singh Chauhan,Ram Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.237 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

¶7

As per contents of FIR, applicant and co-accused were involved in execution of fabricated gift deed on 29.12.2023 of a property which actually belong to applicant and his family members.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that a bare perusal of FIR will indicate that there is no specific role assigned to the applicant with the entire allegation being made primarily against coaccused Anil Kumar. It is submitted that coaccused Lokesh Kumar Tiwari who has been assigned the same role has been enlarged on bail by trial court itself in Bail Application No.8953 of 2024. The applicant is under incarceration since 13.02.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that no specific role has been assigned to any particular person and the applicant has also been shown involved in execution of fabricated gift deed with a similar role been assigned to all the accused. It is admitted however that applicant does not have any

¶10

previous criminal history.

¶11

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 :-

¶12

"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."

¶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

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged forgery committed with regard to execution of gift deed. Co-accused Lokesh Kumar Tiwari having same role has already been enlarged on bail by trial court itself as indicated herein above, the applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 13.02.2025.

¶15

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.

¶16

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Manish , 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:-

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date : - 2.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

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

Manish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Brij Bhushan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Shashi Bhushan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Imran @ Imran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Chandra Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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