Allowed¶17

Uma Kant Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2025BAIL/3058/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed; forgery/cheating charges Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; Case Crime No. 371 of 2023; P.S. Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur; fabricated sale deed dated 30.03.2022; applicant only marginal witness, not vendor/vendee/beneficiary; no previous criminal history; custody since 28.02.2025; Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 relied on; bail conditions u/S. 229-A & 174-A IPC, S. 82 & 313 Cr.P.C.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur, J.; decided 10.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Uma Kant Shukla on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions imposed in the interest of justice. ¶17

Uma Kant Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, named in the FIR only as a marginal witness of the allegedly fabricated sale deed and having no previous criminal history, is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 371 of 2023.

¶16

Court's answer

The applicant has been named in the FIR only as a marginal witness of the sale deed; there is no allegation that he was the vendor, vendee or beneficiary of the transaction.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Considering the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, and the absence of any reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses, the applicant is prima facie entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Key takeaways

Bail is granted subject to conditions requiring the applicant's presence before the trial court at key stages, default whereof may attract proceedings under Section 229-A IPC, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. followed by proceedings under Section 174-A IPC, and appearance for framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed — Uma Kant Shukla, CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3058 of 2025, arising from Case Crime No. 371 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur. The FIR alleges creation of a fabricated sale deed dated 30.03.2022 in favour of one Sharda Devi over the property of the informant's brother-in-law Krishan Kumar, who had gone missing. The Court found the applicant was named in the FIR only as a marginal witness to the sale deed, neither vendor, vendee nor beneficiary, with no previous criminal history and in incarceration since 28.02.2025; the State admitted these facts. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 (bail is the rule, jail the exception), and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held the applicant prima facie entitled to bail and allowed the application, directing release on a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions including attendance before the trial court, with consequences under Section 229-A IPC, Section 82 Cr.P.C., Section 174-A IPC and Section 313 Cr.P.C. for default.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20262

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3058 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Uma Kant Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui 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. 371 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, applicant alongwith coaccused is instrumental in creation of a fabricated sale deed dated 30.03.2022 in favour of one Sharda Devi pertaining to property of informant brother in law. It is stated that the said brother in law Krishan Kumar has gone missing, a fact which was taken advantage of by the accused.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that the applicant is only marginal witness of the sale-deed and is neither the vendor, vendee or even beneficiary of the transaction. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 28.02.2025.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but admits that applicant is marginal witness in the aforesaid sale-deed and does not have any 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

¶12

be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"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."

¶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

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been named in the FIR only as a marginal witness of the sale deed. There is no allegation against him of being either the vendor, vendee or a beneficiary of the transaction. He is under incarceration since 28.02.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶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, Uma Kant Shukla , 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:-

¶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 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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

Order Date : - 10.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶24

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

Uma Kant Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Kant Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Aditay Singh Paliwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Gond @ Pankaj Gaud Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anothers

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

Durgesh Mishra @ Ashish Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Suraj Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.