Reza vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Reza with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 608 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a lady. She has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that as per allegation contained in F.I.R, accused applicant and other co-accused have executed 11 forged sale deeds on the land of graveyard. He further submits that F.I.R. was lodged by concerned Lekhpal against 4 persons including the accused applicant and during the course of inquiry by the Revenue Authority, this fact was discovered that four sale deeds are not available, but he admit the fact that six sale deeds have been executed, attested copy of the sale deeds is available on record as Annexure no. SA.-1 to the supplementary affidavit. 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 neither the accused applicant is vendor or vendee nor she is marginal witness of the so called sale deeds. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that co-accused Chaman and Sonu have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 04.11.2025 and 15.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.38375 of 2025

¶11

BAIL No. 36463 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

and 40215 of 2025 respectively. 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 she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2025.

¶14

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, she does not deserve any indulgence. He further contended that investigation is going on and in case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

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 SSC 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 her furnishing personal bond and two 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 she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶18

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

¶19

(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 her.

¶20

BAIL No. 36463 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her 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

November 19, 2025 Asha

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

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

Reza v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reza 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

Rohitdas vs State of U.P.

Firoz vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kalariya vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar Chaubey vs State of U.P.

Najir Ali vs State of U.P.