Partly allowed

Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2025CRLA/1745/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail appeal under the SC/ST Act in a case involving a forged sale deed and house attack. The court found no allegation against the appellant in the complaint, his name added later, and granted interim bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on interim bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to attendance and conduct conditions; notice issued on the appeal, listed for 9 July 2025.

Lakhan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1745 of 2025 Appellant :- Lakhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶4

(Order on anticipatory bail application)

¶5

Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State-respondent no.1.

¶6

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) District Raebareli rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellant in Session Case No. 236 of 2023 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3(Da)(Dha) Act of P.S. Mill Area, District Raebareli.

¶7

As per contents of FIR, complaint made by the complainant, allegation levelled is that one Shiv Bhadur fraudulently induced the brother of informant/complainant to execute a sale deed in favour of his wife Anita Gupta on the basis of forged and fabricated approval since the property belonged to persons under the SC/ST category. It has also been stated that on 30.10.2020 at about 10 AM, persons nominated in the complaint barged into the house of informant while attacking him and his family members and inflicted injuries.

¶8

It has been submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be quite evident from the fact that although he has nominated in the complaint but there is not a single allegation levelled against him either with regard to fabrication of any document or even attacking and injuring the complainant and his family members. it is also submitted that even from a bare perusal of complaint, section imputed under S.C./S.T. Act are clearly not imputed and is a factor which has not been considered by trial court while issuing summons.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the anticipatory bail application but admits that previous criminal history between the parties has been explained.

¶10

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned

¶11

counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that although appellant has been nominated in the complaint but there is absolutely no allegation levelled against him in the entire memorandum of complaint and his name has been induced subsequently in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and that allegation pertaining to fabrication of documents for the purpose is that litigation against the appellant is admittedly pending. The aspect of imputation of SC/ST Act considering the entire incident is said to have taken place inside the house of the complainant would require consideration. Appellant's previous criminal history has been explained, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let appellant, Lakhan 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:-

¶13

(i) The appellant 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.

¶14

(ii) The appellant 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.

¶15

(iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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.

¶16

(iv) The appellant 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 appellant 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.

¶17

(Order in memo of appeal)

¶18

Heard.

¶19

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2.

¶20

List this case on 9^th July, 2025 as fresh , along service report

¶21

Objections to be filed in the meantime.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.6.2025 Preeti.

¶23

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

Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Pratap Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of External Affairs New Delhi and 2 Others

Ramesh Vs State of U.P.

Putan Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Satish Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shahrukh vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy., Home and another

Dil Kiran Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others