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

Heard Sri Atul Verma,learned counsel for the applicant , Sri Rajeev Verma,learned A.G.A for the State as well as Sri Ram Naresh Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶13

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.476 of 2024, under Sections 316(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(3), 61(2) of B.N.S., registered at Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶14

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 08.10.2024 against three persons, including the applicant and her husband Maan Singh, who stated that Maan Singh had taken Rs.fifty lakhs from the informant under pretext of removing illegal encroachment made on two plots of land belonging to the complainant. Thereafter, the accused applicant offered to get person employed in Kalyan Singh Cancer Institute for payment of Rs.twenty lakhs per candidate and the complainant gave Rs. thirty five lakhs in cash and Rs.five lakhs through bank account for getting his nephew and nephew's wife employed in the cancer institute. Although, the names of the complainant's nephew and his wife were not included in the select list, he claims to have paid Rs.fifteen lakhs for getting his another nephew employed as a peon in Raj Bhawan. It is alleged that when the complainant demanded return of the money, the accused persons threatened him.

¶15

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has explained criminal history of three cases in para 12 of the bail application. Applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024. Charge sheet has been filed and the offences are triable by Magistrate.

¶16

BAIL No. 289 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Co-accused Pradeep Dubey has been granted bail vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail No.279 of 2025.

¶19

Another co-accused Maya Devi against whom similar allegations were made has also been granted bail vide order dated 15.9.2025 passed in Bail No.2054 of 2025.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that while granting bail to Maya Devi, co accused, the coordinate Bench in para 8 of the bail order has expressed concern over the conduct of complainant who has given huge amount in cash by illegal means to the accused persons instead of taking recourse to law.

¶21

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. The complainant's counsel submits that approximately Rs.1,05,00,000/- has been taken by the applicant on different dates by deceitful means along with co-accused persons. It is further submitted that forged papers from the applicant including forged letter pad of SDM, Sadar, Lucknow and District Magistrate, Lucknow have been recovered.

¶23

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, the co-accused, named above, have been granted bail, offences are triable by Magistrate, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also the fact that the applicant has explained the criminal history in the bail application, the applicant is in jail since 14.11.2024 and and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let the applicant Maan Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶26

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶29

(iv) 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.

¶30

BAIL No. 289 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

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.

¶33

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶34

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶35

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶36

November 12, 2025

¶37

Renu/-

¶38

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶39

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Manmohan @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Abhay Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 3 Others

Yogendra Singh @ Jogendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Aayush @ Bauva Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.