Malak Singh Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Malak Singh Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the five stated conditions; identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before acceptance of bonds.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Malak Singh, booked in Case Crime No.0274 of 2025 (P.S. Baniather, Distt. Sambhal) under Sections 140(1), 127(2), 217, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 308(5) B.N.S., should be enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

Bail granted: the court directed release of the applicant on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The grant rests on the court's consideration of the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and paragraph 53 of the Apex Court decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement concerning overcrowding of jails by under-trials.

Key takeaways

In granting bail the court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.ratio¶¶15
Release is subject to five conditions: no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; an undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence before the Trial Court on each fixed date (absence without sufficient cause actionable under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS); consequences of misuse including proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of BNSS with proceedings under Section 174-A IPC/209 of BNS; and mandatory personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 of B.N.S.S. Breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail, and identity/residence proof of the applicant and sureties is to be verified by the court concerned before bonds are accepted.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Santosh Rai, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32901 of 2025, decided October 8, 2025. Applicant Malak Singh sought enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0274 of 2025, P.S. Baniather, Distt. Sambhal, under Sections 140(1), 127(2), 217, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 308(5) B.N.S. Counsel argued false implication arising out of a civil dispute pending before the civil court between the applicant's brother and the informant; that no grievous injury was caused to the complainant or any other person, the applicant having only tied the victim to a pole; incarceration since 21.8.2025; absence of criminal history; and protracted trial. Learned AGA opposed but conceded no grievous injury had been caused. Finding force in the applicant's submissions and invoking the larger mandate of Article 21 and paragraph 53 of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024, (SC) LawSuit 677) on 5-6 times overcrowding of jails by under-trials, the Single Judge enlarged the applicant on bail on a personal bond with two like sureties, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence/threatening witnesses and adjournment-seeking, requiring presence at opening of case, framing of charge and Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. statements, tying absence to proceedings under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS and, on misuse, to proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 BNSS with action under Section 174-A IPC/209 BNS, and declaring breach of conditions a ground for cancellation of bail.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32901 of 2025

Malak Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ashwani Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Malak Singh seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0274 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 127(2), 217, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 308(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Baniather, District- Sambhal.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to civil dispute pending before the civil court between the brother of the accused applicant and informant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.8.2025. It is submitted that the no any kind of grievous injury has been caused either to the complainant or to any other person and the applicant has only tied the victim with the pole. It is further submitted the applicant has no criminal history except this case. It is argued that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that no any kind of grievous injury has been caused to the complainant by the applicant in this case.

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant,

BAIL No. 32901 of 2025

2

keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024, (SC) LawSuit 677 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials 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:-

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

(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 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS.

(iv) 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./84 of 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/209 of BNS.

(v) 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./351 of B.N.S.S. 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.

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

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by

BAIL No. 32901 of 2025

3

the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

October 8, 2025 RA

(Santosh Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad