Surendra vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30944 of 2025

Surendra

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rameshwar Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Surendra with a prayer to release him on bail in Criminal Case No. 21218 of 2024 in Case Crime No. 260 of 2023, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 452, 506, 308, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Ughaiti, District Badaun during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Section 324, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and during the course of investigation Sections 323, 452, 308 I.P.C. were added. He further submits that applicant has not caused injury to any of the injured and also no specific or separate role has been assigned to the applicant. He further submits that the injury sustained to the injured Chokhelal and complainant are simple in nature except the fracture in head. He further submits that cross case has been lodged from the side of accused applicant against the Chokhelal, Ishwari and informant of this case Brijmohan in Case crime No. 0271 of 2023. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that co-accused Nandram and Radheshyam have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order

¶10

BAIL No. 30944 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

dated 25.07.2025 and 25.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47169 of 2024 and 502 of 2025. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. He further submits that chargesheet has already been filed in the instant matter and there is no possibility that applicant will pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 05.12.2024.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the

¶17

BAIL No. 30944 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

witnesses are present in Court.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶22

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

¶24

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

November 13, 2025

¶27

Bhanu

¶28

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra v. State of U.P.

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

Aamir @ Mohd. Shadab vs State of U.P.

Sanju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anmol Yadav Alias Rinku vs State of U.P.

Salman Alias Sallu vs State of U.P.

Pradumn vs State of U.P.

Jeetu Alias Jitendra vs State of U.P.