Shyamta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20888

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2937 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyamta Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State while power filed by Mr. Ashish Raman Mishra, Advocate on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

¶7

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.366 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bahraich.

¶8

As per contents of first information report, applicant along with co-accused was instrumental in forgery of a will deed dated 17.11.2012 which was the basis of subsequent sale-deed.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and the FIR even otherwise does not explain considerable delay of 12 years in lodging the same. It is also submitted that will deed dated 17.11.2012 is in fact a registered document in which applicant is shown as a beneficiary. It is also submitted that the aforesaid registered will has not been challenged by any one in any competent court of Civil jurisdiction. It is therefore submitted that unnecessarily criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. It is submitted that applicant has previous criminal history of only one case which has been explained in supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application with submission that applicant himself has admitted the fact that Will dated 17.11.2012 was not executed by the owner of the property and in view of such admission, allegations levelled against him are clearly made out. It is however admitted that till date no one has challenged the registered will dated 17.11.2012 and the suit which has been filed only challenges the subsequent sale-deed.

¶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

¶13

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."

¶14

"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."

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears from the contents of FIR itself that forgery is said to have been committed of registered will dated 17.11.2012. There does not appear to be any explanation for delay of 12 years in lodging first information report. It is also admitted by opposite parties that till date the aforesaid registered Will dated 17.11.2012 has not been challenged by any one. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant Shyamta Prasad , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/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:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 kvg/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyamta Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamta Prasad 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

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

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

Shyama Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Saurabh Kumar @ Sajjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Adarsh Singh @ Yashu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Mohammad Athar Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another