Lakhan Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- 1. Lakhan Singh, 2. Jagan Singh, 3. Om Prakash, 4. Bheem Singh @ Bheema, 5. Ramesh Chandra and 6. Hubblal in connection with Case No. 271/2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 419, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Fatehpur Sikari, District- Agra.

¶10

From perusal of the record it appears that the matter in hand pertains to a civil suit regarding the properties of some mandir. Both the parties claim their rights upon the Gopal Krishna Bankey Behari Ji Mandir at Shahpur (Bandpura. The contents of the FIR itself reveals that civil suit was also contested between both the parties and some of accused persons claim to be the sarvarakar/ pujari of the said mandir on the basis of revenue record wherein their names have been recorded, however, the said claim made by the present accused was denied by the informant party who claims that the accused persons of this matter on the basis of forged documents have got some rights in their favour and that was the main cause behind this criminal matter.

¶11

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that during investigation anticipatory bail has been granted to the applicant and the said liberty was never misused by them. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. The dispute is purely of civil nature but it has

¶12

NABAIL No. 9000 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

been given colour of criminality. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that although the case in hand reveals some elements of civil suit but since the present accused persons obtained an order in their favour on the basis of the forged papers the have committed a serious criminal offence because they are claiming to be sarvarakar/ pujari of the mandir and all the money related to the said mandir is being grabbed by them.

¶16

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶17

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶18

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶19

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶20

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶21

So far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely

¶22

NABAIL No. 9000 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶25

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶26

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶27

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶28

i. 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence

¶29

ii. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶30

iii. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶31

iv. The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.

¶33

November 25, 2025 Fhd

¶34

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lakhan Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhan Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Javed @ Javed Akhtar and Another vs State of U.P.

Smt Kanta Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Golu @ Sandeep Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Katara vs State of U.P.

Pawan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranveer vs State of U.P.