Allowed¶26

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

Allahabad HC8 May 2025CRLA/1204/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLA 1204 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Ajay Bhanot J.; Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.; bail during pendency of appeal; post-conviction bail; Prevention of Corruption Act S.7, S.13(1)(d), S.13(2); Criminal Case No. 12 of 2009; Case Crime No. 4193 of 2009; PS Kotwali, Unnao; conviction sentence 4 years + Rs. 10,000 fine each under S.7 and S.13(2); concurrent sentences; personal bond and two sureties; realization of fine stayed; no observations on merits; in jail since 10.04.2025; decision September 10, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Appellant Brijesh Kumar Singh enlarged on bail during pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 1204 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below; realization of the imposed fine stayed. ¶26

Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, convicted and sentenced in Criminal Case No. 12 of 2009, should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of his appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1204 of 2025).

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The bail application seeking release of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal is allowed, expressly without any observations on the merits of the case.

¶26

Key takeaways

Appellant Brijesh Kumar Singh is to be released on bail in the aforesaid criminal case upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court below.ratio¶27
Realization of the imposed fine is stayed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail pending appeal granted. Ajay Bhanot, J. (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 15), allowed the bail application of appellant Brijesh Kumar Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 1204 of 2025, seeking enlargement during the pendency of the appeal against his conviction in Criminal Case No. 12 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 4193 of 2009 (Sections 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao). The trial court had sentenced him to 4 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under S.7 PCA and 4 years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under S.13(2) PCA, running concurrently. Counsel's grounds included witness contradictions as to place of occurrence, allegedly irregular prosecution sanction, and misreading of evidence, but the order directs release without observations on merits: bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court below, and realization of the fine is stayed. Appellant in custody since 10.04.2025.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1204 of 2025

¶3

Brijesh Kumar Singh

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Satendra Kumar (Singh), Abhishek Misra, Shivam Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 15

¶6

HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

¶7

List in due course.

¶8

Order in Bail Application

¶9

By means of the bail application the appellant has prayed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal in Criminal Case No. 12 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 4193 of 2009, under Sections 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kotwali District Unnao. The appellant is in jail since 10.04.2025.

¶10

Shri Satendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following grounds and the material evidences which were neglected from consideration or not properly appreciated by the learned trial court in accordance with law could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Vivek Gupta, learned AGA from the record and entitle the appellant to be enlarged on bail:

¶11

The appellant has been convicted by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment and sentenced under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act to an imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and under Section 13(2) of Prevention

¶12

CRLA No. 1204 of 2025

¶13

¶14

of Corruption Act to an imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The sentences shall run concurrently.

¶15

Learned trial court neglected to consider the material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses regarding the place of occurrence. Inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in themselves discredit the prosecution case. However, in spite of the aforesaid fact the learned trial court found against the applicant.

¶16

The sanction for the prosecution was not made in accordance with law.

¶17

The trial court misread the evidences and also neglected to consider material parts of the evidences which vitiate the trial court judgment.

¶18

The appellant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶19

The appellant has sanguine hope of succeeding in the appeal.

¶20

There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future.

¶21

Inordinate delay in hearing of the appeal will led to an indefinite detention of the appellant. In absence of possibility of an early hearing of the appeal the appellant could well serve out his sentence and in that event the appeal would become infructuous.

¶22

The appellant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen had always cooperated with the investigation and had joined the trial proceedings. The appellant is not likely to reoffend.

¶23

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any

¶24

CRLA No. 1204 of 2025

¶25

¶26

observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶27

Let the appellant- Brijesh Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid sessions trial/criminal case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶28

The realization of the fine shall remain stayed.

¶29

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)

¶30

September 10, 2025 Dhananjai

¶31

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Rashmikant vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr. X (Minor) Thru. Her Father Hem Chandra Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Mahendra Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dilshad Alias Kallu vs State of U.P.

Prem vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Manju Devi vs State of U.P. and Another