Padam Singh @ Rahul vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Padam Singh @ Rahul with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.292 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 317(3) and 140(2) B.N.S., Police Station Farah, District Mathura, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that 50 kg pakki fine silver and 25 kg kachhi silver were said to be looted by unknown persons. After two days of the incident, the accused applicant was arrested by the police personnel and 82.02 kg. was recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent and reliable witness of the recovery was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo. As per the F.I.R. version, 75 kg. silver was recovered but recovery of 82.02 kg. was shown from the possession of the applicant which appears to be false and concocted story. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit but one more case was registered after this case relating to Sections 109(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act in which he has been granted bail. In this case no one sustained any injury. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.08.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

BAIL No. 35141 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

Per contra learned A.G.A. has 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. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; period of detention in jail, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶15

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, 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 a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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 I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶19

(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 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him

¶20

BAIL No. 35141 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶23

(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 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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

(Santosh Rai,J.)

October 13, 2025

Asha

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Padam Singh @ Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam Singh @ Rahul 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.

Ramkishan vs State of U.P.