Allowed¶13

Bhikhna and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2025BAIL/6633/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar J.; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION 6633 of 2025; Bhikhna; Satyam Malha; Case Crime No. 127/2025; BNS 316(2) 318(4) 303(2) 317(2) 317(4) 317(5); PS Maharajganj; District Raebareli; insurance-agent jewellery ruse 10.05.2025; custody since 19.05.2025; no independent witness to recovery; offences triable by Magistrate; three prior cases explained; personal bond two sureties; bail conditions; S.82 CrPC / S.84 BNSS proclamation; S.174-A IPC / S.209 BNS; order dated 23.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Bhikhna and Satyam Malha released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (i)-(vi) imposed in the interest of justice. ¶13

Bhikhna and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether applicants Bhikhna and Satyam Malha, accused under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS in Case Crime No. 127/2025, P.S. Maharajganj, District Raebareli, should be released on bail.

¶13

Court's answer

Bail application allowed; applicants Bhikhna and Satyam Malha to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Grounds for granting bail: no independent witness to the alleged recovery, offences triable by a Magistrate, criminal antecedents explained in supplementary affidavit, and custody since 19.05.2025.

¶13

Key takeaways

Release made subject to conditions imposed in the interest of justice, including non-tampering with evidence, no pressure/intimidation of prosecution witnesses, no inducement or dissuasion of persons acquainted with the facts, undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, and presence before the trial court on each fixed date; misuse attracting proclamation may lead to proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) and Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).ratio¶15
Clarified that the observations in the order are confined to the present application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:42267 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.), Order Date 23.7.2025: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6633 of 2025 allowed. Applicants Bhikhna and Satyam Malha, accused in Case Crime No. 127/2025, U/S-316(2), 318(4), 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS, P.S. Maharajganj, District Raebareli (alleged obtaining of jewellery by a woman posing as an insurance agent on 10.05.2025), in custody since 19.05.2025, released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each. Grounds: no independent witness to the alleged recovery; offences triable by a Magistrate; criminal antecedents (three prior cases) explained in supplementary affidavit. Conditions imposed: no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, no inducement/threat/promise, undertaking against adjournments when witnesses present, presence before trial court; misuse triggering proclamation under S. 82 Cr.P.C. (now S. 84 BNSS) followed by absence may attract proceedings under S. 174-A IPC (now S. 209 BNS). Observations confined to the bail application, no bearing on merits of trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42267

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6633 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Bhikhna And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

A supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, on 10.05.2025, while the informant’s daughter was alone at home and the other family members were away, an unidentified woman arrived with a minor child, pretending to be an agent of an insurance company. She allegedly persuaded the informant's daughter to hand over her jewellery under the pretext of taking a photograph, promising to return with some money. It is further alleged that after taking the jewellery, the woman did not return.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants argues that the prosecution story is highly improbable and lacks credibility. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicants have explained their involvement in three prior cases in the supplementary affidavit. The offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

On due consideration to the facts that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery, the offences are triable by a Magistrate, the applicants have explained their criminal antecedents in the supplementary affidavit, and they are in custody since 19.05.2025, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicants.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicants, Bhikhna and Satyam Malha , involved in Case Crime No. 127/2025, U/S-316(2), 318 (4), 303 (2), 317 (2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS, Police Station-Maharajganj, DistrictRaebareli be released on bail on their 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:-

¶16

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.7.2025

¶24

R.C.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhikhna and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhikhna and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt. Bhagmati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Saheem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raksha Sonkar vs M/S Paarth Infrabuild Pvt. Thru. Authorised Signatory

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.