Arvind Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0785 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3) BNS, Police Station Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶11

As per contents of first information report, applicant is shown as a middle man who is in the business of purchase of paddy and for that purpose contacted the informant on 11.10.2025. It is stated that an agreement was struck whereby the informant provided 13 quintal 82 Kg of paddy amounting to Rs.21,902/- to the applicant who immediately paid Rs.1902/- with a promise to pay outstanding on 25.10.2025 but failed to pay the same and has thereafter absconded.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that admittedly he is in the business of sale and purchase of paddy as a whole seller but for such purposes, only a token advance payment is made with outstanding cleared as soon as paddy is sold and amount is released to him. It is submitted that the informant prematurely lodged the FIR without waiting for sale of paddy and due to which applicant being

¶13

BAIL No. 2500 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

under incarceration, the remaining amount could not be paid. He undertakes to clear outstanding amount of informant upon release from jail. It is further submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that a bare perusal of the contents of FIR clearly indicates the aspects of cheating and defrauding the informant by a false promise. It is however admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶17

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 :-

¶18

"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."

¶19

"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."

¶20

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, and

¶21

BAIL No. 2500 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that FIR has been lodged due to non re-payment of the entire amount of paddy purchased by applicant. The entire dispute appears to be as a result of a financial transaction turning sour and appears to be civil in nature. Applicant has undertaken to repay the outstanding amount upon release. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 23.12.2025. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶24

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶25

Let applicant Arvind Prajapati , involved in aforesaid case crime 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:-

¶26

(i) The applicant(s) shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶27

(ii) The applicant(s) shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her/ their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her/their under Section 269-A of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶28

(iii) In case, the applicant(s) misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her/ their presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) 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/her/them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

¶29

BAIL No. 2500 of 2026

¶30

4

¶31

(iv) The applicant(s) 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 351 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant(s) 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/her/them in accordance with law.

¶32

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶33

April 8, 2026 Subodh/-

¶34

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

Arvind Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Atul Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Awadhesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umakant Chaubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suneel Lohar @ Sunil and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amrish Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Lakshan Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.