Allowed¶5

Shyam Babu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2025BAIL/37932/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: bail granted; Allahabad High Court; Santosh Rai, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application 37932 of 2025; Case Crime No.147 of 2025; P.S. Rabupura; District Gautam Buddha Nagar; Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS; impostor execution of two sale deeds in informant's name (Daula alias Babu Singh); civil suits for cancellation before Civil Judge (J.D.), Jewar; charge-sheet filed; custody since 08.07.2025; Article 21; Manish Sisodia; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb; Satender Kumar Antil; personal bond and two heavy sureties; bail conditions; breach ground for cancellation; decided November 18, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 15-23. ¶5

Shyam Babu vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 15-23.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Shyam Babu, in custody since 08.07.2025 in Case Crime No.147 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, should be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Court's answer

Bail granted: the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Bail is subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; undertaking not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present; personal presence before the trial court on dates fixed, including opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement of the accused; misuse of liberty to invite proceedings strictly in accordance with law; breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Key takeaways

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties is to be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Santosh Rai, J.) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37932 of 2025 and enlarged accused-applicant Shyam Babu on bail in Case Crime No.147 of 2025, P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S. Counsel admitted the applicant executed two sale deeds as imposter in the name of informant Daula alias Babu Singh; civil suits for cancellation were pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Jewar. Charge-sheet stood submitted, the applicant had no criminal history and was in jail since 08.07.2025. Considering Article 21, paragraph 53 of Manish Sisodia, and the dicta in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil, the Court granted bail on a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions (no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; no adjournments when witnesses are present; personal presence at key trial stages; misuse to invite legal proceedings; breach a ground for cancellation), and directed verification of identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties, expressly without expressing any opinion on merits. Decided November 18, 2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37932 of 2025

¶3

Shyam Babu

¶4

.....Applicant(s) Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Kant Dubey, Santosh Kumar Dubey 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 Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Shyam Babu seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.147 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not prepared any forged document but during argument he admits the fact that accused-applicant executed two sale deeds as imposter in the name of the informant Daula alias Babu Singh. First sale deed is stated to be executed in favour of Smt. Pooja Valiya, Km. Saisha Kamla Duwa, Km. Smara Arandatti Dudha, Smt. Ipsa, Km. Katha Rai. Second sale deed is stated to be executed in favour of Sri Amitabh Bathla, Sri Sukhmeet Valiya, Sri Manesh Bathla and Sri Khusmeet Valiya. Photocopies of the sale deeds have been filed by means of supplementary affidavit (Annexure SA-1 and SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit). He further submitted that civil suits regarding cancellation of the aforesaid sale deeds have been filed before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Jewar, Gautambudhnagar, attested copies of the same are available on record as Annexure-SA-4 and S.A.-5 of the supplementary affidavit. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 08.07.2025. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of

¶10

BAIL No. 37932 of 2025

¶11

¶12

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

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, 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 his furnishing personal bond and two heavy 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 witnesses are present in Court.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

BAIL No. 37932 of 2025

¶21

¶22