Anoop Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39866 of 2025

Anoop Kumar Shukla

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶7

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶8

1.Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

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

¶10

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Anoop Kumar Shukla seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.205 of 2025, under Sections 147, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 342, 384, 120-B IPC, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence regarding execution of forged sale deed in this case as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2025. It is submitted that 14 accused persons alongwith other advocates as unknown are named in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the FIR the incident has occurred on 23.6.2010, whereas the FIR has been registered on 21.5.2025 after a delay of 15 years for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution and name of applicant has surfaced on the basis of statement of informant Kasim Raza but general allegation of misappropriation of funds has been made against the applicant. It is argued that the informant in his statement recorded at a very belated stage under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate has assigned general role of the applicant alongwith other coaccused persons, wherein the fact of payment of Rs.1 lakh to accused persons has also been mentioned. It is contended that no reliable

¶12

BAIL No. 39866 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

evidence/material is available on record regarding commissioning of forgery etc. by the applicant in this case. It is argued that co-accused Sanjay Upadhyay has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36057 of 2025. It is further argued that the applicant has criminal history of 10 cases which have been explained in para 11 of the bail application and in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is lastly submitted that since the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating/pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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)

¶21

BAIL No. 39866 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶24

(v) In case the applicant misuses 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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

December 1, 2025 Asha

¶28

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶29

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

Anoop Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar Shukla 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

Badhshah vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home, Lucknow

Abrar and Another vs State of U.P.

Surendra vs State of U.P.

Faheem vs State of U.P.

Kulwant Singh vs State of U.P.

Satendra Kumar vs State of U.P.