Allowed¶18

Shivraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2026BAIL/2105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2105 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Rajeev Bharti, J.; Shivraj v. State of U.P.; 82-year-old applicant; custody since 11.12.2023; civil dispute given criminal colour; offence triable by Magistrate; mortgage of 1/6 land share; forged interview letter dated 10.01.2011; land acquisition notice dated 18.10.2020; LPG gas pipeline; compensation Rs.1,70,400/-; personal bond and two sureties; conditions against tampering and witness intimidation; Section 84 B.N.S.S.; Section 209 B.N.S.; decision dated February 24, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Shivraj 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, subject to conditions imposed in the interest of justice. ¶18

Shivraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, an old man aged about 82 years in jail since 11.12.2023 in an offence triable by the Magistrate, should be enlarged on bail where the dispute between the parties is alleged to be purely of civil in nature given a criminal colour.

¶16

Court's answer

On due consideration of the submissions, the record, the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature given criminal colour, the offence being triable by the Magistrate, the applicant's undertaking to co-operate in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail, and his age of about 82 years and custody since 11.12.2023, the Court found it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Key takeaways

The applicant Shivraj is 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, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, no inducement or dissuasion of witnesses, presence before the trial court on dates fixed, and liability to proceedings under Section 84 B.N.S.S. and Section 209 of B.N.S. in case of misuse of bail.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajeev Bharti, J.) allowed the bail application of Shivraj in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2105 of 2024. The applicant, stated to be an old man aged about 82 years in jail since 11.12.2023, contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature given a criminal colour: he had mortgaged 1/6 share of his land (8 biswa in khasra no.08, Village Bhatgaon, Tehsil & District Lucknow) with the informant on a promise of a government job for his son; a purported forged interview letter dated 10.01.2011 was issued; the mortgaged land was got registered in the informant's favour without mutation until 2021; and the land was acquired for an LPG gas pipeline against which he received compensation of Rs.1,70,400/-. The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer but could not dispute these facts. Holding the offence triable by the Magistrate and noting the applicant's undertaking to co-operate, the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, found it a fit case for bail and directed release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or inducing witnesses, and providing for consequences under Section 84 B.N.S.S. and Section 209 of B.N.S. in case of misuse of bail.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2105 of 2024

Shivraj

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prabhaat Kumar Tripathi, Jagat Pal Singh, Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 23

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who is an old man aged about 82 years, has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant mortgaged 1/6 share of his land, i.e. 8 biswa in khasra no.08 measuring an area 0.3410 hect., situated at VillageBhatgaon, Pargana- Bijnor, Tehsil & District- Lucknow, with the informant on the promise given by the informant to provide a government job to his son. Thereafter, the informant prepared a forged and fabricated interview letter dated 10.01.2011 in favour of applicant's son, but on the date of interview, the informant informed his son that he is underage and would be given appointment on the next year. He further submits that the informant by using forged and fabricated documents got registered the mortgaged land in her favour and despite the sale deed in favour of informant since the year 2012, she did not get it mutated in the revenue record till 2021 and thereafter the possession of the same was taken by UPIDA. He further submits that if the informant had actually purchased the land in question, she immediately ought to have it mutated in her name in the revenue records. He further submits that since the land in question was in the name of applicant, he received a notice dated 18.10.2020 from the Prescribed Authority & Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow under Section 5091) of Land Acquisition Adhiniyam, 1962 for laying down LPG Gas Pipleline in

¶12

BAIL No. 2105 of 2024

¶13

¶14

pursuance of Government Gazette no.2977 dated 26.09.2020 and the entire land was taken by the Government including the land in question and against the same, the applicant has been paid compensation of Rs.1,70,400/- only, which were transferred in his account, copy of passbook is annexed as Annexure S.A.1 to the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature and the same has been given criminal colour; the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.12.2023 and he undertakes to cooperate in trial proceedings, hence he requests for bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the fact that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature, which has been given the criminal colour; the offence is triable by the Magistrate and undertaking of the applicant that he shall co-operate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of the bail, the applicant, who is an old person aged about 82 years, is in jail since 11.12.2023, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Shivraj involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) The applicant 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.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶23

BAIL No. 2105 of 2024

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶28

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶29

February 24, 2026

¶30

Anand/-

¶31

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

Shivraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Mohd. Shamim @ Mohd. Shameem vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sapna Singh vs State of U.P. Thur. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Mohammad Jabir Alias Munna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vikas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rishu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Indra Prakash Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow