Basant Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31871

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4576 of 2025

Applicant :- Basant Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Iqbal Ahmad,Amanur Rahman,Ashma Izzat,Farhan Shaikh,Pallavi Borgohain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State.

¶7

1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.263 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Rehra Bazar, District Balrampur.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, allegation levelled is that despite fact that the informant's grandmother Shyam Kala passed away on 13.07.1998, a sale deed was registered in favour of applicant on 22.11.2022 by an imposter.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from fact that there is no allegation against him of being an imposter who has illegally executed a sale deed. It is submitted that the sale deed has been duly registered and till date no Suit for its cancellation has been filed. Applicant's previous criminal history of one case has been duly explained.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with submission that it is in fact applicant who is the beneficiary of the fraudulent transaction and it is he who had put up one Mahala as an imposter for the purposes of execution of sale deed. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been explained.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶14

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an

¶15

exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that applicant is the vendee of property transferred through registered sale deed dated 22.11.2022. There does not appear to be any allegation levelled against him of being an imposter for impersonating the actual owner of the property. The aspect of proof of date of death of Shyam Kala would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. Applicant's previous criminal history has been explained and he is under incarceration since 18.12.2024. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Basant Kumar Singh involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.5.2025

¶24

kvg/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Basant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Similar cases

Usha Mishra ( in Fir Usha Devi ) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Mohan Thakur vs Shri M. Devraj Prin Secy. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Riyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Home Department, Lucknow and Another

Meraj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ram Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.