High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State as well as Mr. D. R. Shukla, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. Supplementary counter affidavit filed today on behalf of informant is taken on record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0021 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7A Prevention o Corruption Act, registered at Police Station S.I.T., District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, person nominated therein are said to have executed a fabricated sale-deed dated 09.12.1998 and have sought mutation on that basis. Applicant is not named in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that the FIR does not name him nor is there any allegation against him. It is submitted that applicant has been nominated only on the basis of an alleged application/ objection filed in mutation proceedings claiming to be owner of the property in question. It is submitted that applicant has specifically denied any such application having been filed by him in mutation proceedings. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 05.09.2023 and criminal history has already been explained.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the name of applicant was deliberately omitted from the FIR by the police officer concerned and disciplinary action thereafter was taken against him for that role. It is also submitted that the application preferred by applicant clearly indicates his role in trying to defraud the informant of his immoveable property. It is submitted that even recently, the applicant has again filed an application in mutation proceedings claiming ownership over the property in question and as such the element of cheating is evident.

6. Learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant but the previous criminal history has been explained. It is also submitted that the applicant is a member of the gang led by one Brajesh Kumar Awasthi, which is in the business of filing fabricated sale-deeds with regard to immoveable properties claiming it to be their own.

7. 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 :- "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." "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."

8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has neither been nominated in the FIR nor has any allegation been levelled against him. He appears to have been nominated on the basis of application filed in mutation proceedings. Neither the FIR nor subsequent documents indicate the applicant to be a vendor, vendee or beneficiary of the transaction. The aspect of applications filed by applicant in mutation and execution proceedings would be subject matter of trial with regard to evidence led as also in civil proceedings. Applicant is under incarceration since 05.06.2023 with previous criminal history having been explained.

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Santoshi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Subodh/-

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State as well as Mr. D. R. Shukla, learned counsel for informant and perused the record. Supplementary counter affidavit filed today on behalf of informant is taken on record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0021 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7A Prevention o Corruption Act, registered at Police Station S.I.T., District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR, person nominated therein are said to have executed a fabricated sale-deed dated 09.12.1998 and have sought mutation on that basis. Applicant is not named in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that the FIR does not name him nor is there any allegation against him. It is submitted that applicant has been nominated only on the basis of an alleged application/ objection filed in mutation proceedings claiming to be owner of the property in question. It is submitted that applicant has specifically denied any such application having been filed by him in mutation proceedings. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 05.09.2023 and criminal history has already been explained.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the name of applicant was deliberately omitted from the FIR by the police officer concerned and disciplinary action thereafter was taken against him for that role. It is also submitted that the application preferred by applicant clearly indicates his role in trying to defraud the informant of his immoveable property. It is submitted that even recently, the applicant has again filed an application in mutation proceedings claiming ownership over the property in question and as such the element of cheating is evident.

6. Learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant but the previous criminal history has been explained. It is also submitted that the applicant is a member of the gang led by one Brajesh Kumar Awasthi, which is in the business of filing fabricated sale-deeds with regard to immoveable properties claiming it to be their own.

7. 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 :- "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." "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."

8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has neither been nominated in the FIR nor has any allegation been levelled against him. He appears to have been nominated on the basis of application filed in mutation proceedings. Neither the FIR nor subsequent documents indicate the applicant to be a vendor, vendee or beneficiary of the transaction. The aspect of applications filed by applicant in mutation and execution proceedings would be subject matter of trial with regard to evidence led as also in civil proceedings. Applicant is under incarceration since 05.06.2023 with previous criminal history having been explained.

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Santoshi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant 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 applicant 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 in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Subodh/-