Ram Lal vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38846 of 2025

¶3

Ram Lal

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Danish Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Abhay Mishra, G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant Ram Lal seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.807 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accusedapplicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He has not executed remaining land in favour of other persons. The applicant Ram Lal and Kailash are said to be real brothers. Kailasho Devi is the wife of late Kailash, who is said to be real brother of the applicant. The applicant Ram Lal and Kailash executed the sale deed on 27.03.2023 in favour of Smt. Shamim Begam and Nasir Husain. Thereafter the disputed land was further executed by means of sale deed. The fact was known that Kailash has already died. The report of S.D.M., Sadar, Moradabad is available on record (annexure6 to the bail application). As per report of S.D.M., Sadar, Moradabad, chauhadi of the sale deed is not matching and the applicant has no locus over the disputed land. Kailash has already died many years ago. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that agreement to sell was executed but it was cancelled which is also available on record. The applicant has not taken any benefit or consideration from any person regarding so called forged sale deed or agreement to sell. The matter essentially pertains to civil dispute. First information report was also registered at the very belated stage but no plausible explanation was furnished by the prosecution in this

¶10

BAIL No. 38846 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

case. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of two cases which have been explained in para-27 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 05.09.2025. 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

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 S SC 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 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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a

¶21

BAIL No. 38846 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

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. November 18, 2025 Asha

¶25

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

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

Ram Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal 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

Shivkumar Bind vs State of U. P.

Mrs. Mamta Pal vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P.

Rihan vs State of U.P.

Jwala Yadav Alias Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.P.

Lakhan vs State of U.P.