Ramkishan vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Ramkishan seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.61 of 2025, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura.

¶12

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. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.4.2025. It is submitted that the matter is essentially related to civil dispute and a compromise dated 2.4.2024 has been entered into between the parties in the civil suit no.234 of 2024 (Sanghratan Sethi vs. Ramkishan & Ors.) pending before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Mathura. It is further submitted co-accused Mukesh having the same role has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12787 of 2025. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer made for grant of bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submission.

¶14

BAIL No. 33664 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Inder Mohan Goswai and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases." In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 , the Apex Court has again held that "Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essenttial ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence."

¶17

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 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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

¶21

BAIL No. 33664 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

Section 229-A IPC/269 BNS.

¶24

(iv) In case the applicant misuse 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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

October 17, 2025 RA

¶29

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶30

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

Ramkishan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

Ramkishan 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

Monu vs State of U.P.

Awadesh Kumar Agrahari vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Katiyar vs State of U.P.

Devendra Prasad Yadav vs State of U.P.

Diksha Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Ranvijay Yadav Alias Mulayam vs State of U.P.