Allowed

Raja Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025BAIL/41751/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for robbery-related offences under Sections 394, 411, 34 IPC; applicant alleged false implication, no independent witness to recovery, long custody and ten prior cases. Court granted bail citing prolonged trial uncertainty and Article 21, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions; breach to be ground for cancellation by trial court.

Raja Singh vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41751 of 2025

¶3

Raja Singh

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Akansha Verma, Deepak Kumar Verma
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 State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Raja Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Sessions Case No. 385 of 2021, Case Crime No. 39 of 2021, under Sections 394, 411, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R. three unknown persons caused injury by some sharp edged weapon in the hand of informant and stolen bag having Rs. 5 lakh and He further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He further submits that during the course of investigation after ten days of the incident applicant was arrested and a false recovery of Rs. 1,10,210/, country made pistol and cartridges was said to be recovered from the possession of the accused applicant. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been filed in the instant matter and statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 has already been recorded. 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 nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the

¶10

BAIL No. 41751 of 2025

¶11

¶12

applicant. He further submits that false recovery has been shown from the possession of the accused applicant, however, neither there was any independent witness of the alleged recovery, nor any relevant evidence is on the record, which substantiate the alleged incident. He further submits that criminal history of ten cases against the applicant has been explained in para no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. 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 he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is in judicial custody since last morethan 4 years from 01.02.2021.

¶13

Per contra, Purushotam Maurya, 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, he does not deserve any indulgence. Learned AGA submits that injured sustained grievous injury/ incised wound on finger is not clear on the basis of instruction so received. He He further contended that applicant is habitual offender and he has long criminal history of ten cases. He further submits that grievous injuries were caused to the injured by sharp edged weapon and Rs. 5 lakh was looted by the accused applicant, in which some of the amount has been recovered from the possession of the accused applicant, though he admit the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed in the instant matter and three prosecution witnesses have been examined.

¶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

¶15

BAIL No. 41751 of 2025

¶16

¶17

Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶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

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶26

November 26, 2025 Bhanu

¶27

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raja Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Nida vs State of U.P.

Vakil Kumar Bind and Another vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Agrahari (Gupta) vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Alias Raju vs State of U.P.