Vashudev Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8474 of 2024

Applicant :- Vashudev Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nisha Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and Ms. Nisha Srivastava learned counsel for informant and perused the record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 151 of 2024 under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki.

¶7

As per contents of F.I.R., the applicant allegedly defrauded the informant for a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on the false pretext of providing employment.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that in fact the entire transaction pertained to purchase of immovable property and not a pretext of providing employment. On the basis of instructions however he submits that the applicant is ready and willing to return the aforesaid amount in case he is granted interim bail for that purpose.

¶9

Learned counsel for informant on the basis of instructions does not have any objection in case the applicant is ready and willing to return the amount due to informant.

¶10

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 :-

¶11

"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."

¶12

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

¶13

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of contents of F.I.R., the aspect of receiving the informant on the false pretext of providing employment or for purposes of sale of immovable property would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. In view of undertaking given by applicant which has been accepted by learned counsel for informant, the applicant is granted interim bail. As per his submission, the applicant is granted two months time from the date of his release to return an amount of Rs.10 lacs to the informant.

¶14

Let applicant Vashudev Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim 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:-

¶15

(i) 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. 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.

¶16

(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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) 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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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 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 in accordance with law.

¶19

List this case on 7th July, 2025 in top ten category on which

¶20

date learned counsel for informant shall intimate this Court with regard to refund of the amount.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 prabhat

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vashudev Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vashudev Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

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

M/S Drizzle Constructions Thru. Saurabh Kumar Pandey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brahmadeen Vs State of U.P. and Others

Saurabh Kumar Pandey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mithilesh Kumar Yadava @ Mithilesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Dayal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Gulam @ Lamboo and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another