State of U.P v. Party

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that seven accused persons including applicant were named in the F.I.R. and as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., general role of abduction has been assigned to all the accused persons. He further submits that applicant has not abducted informant or any one and he is not the real beneficiary of so called execution of sale deed or gift deed in his favour. He further submits that brother of informant Raj Bahadur has executed the alleged Bainama/gift deed in favour of his cousin's son-in-law, Ratnesh. He further submits that applicant has not abducted the informant in lieu of ransom. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that named co-accused Suneel Kumar, Satendra 2 BAIL No. 9553 of 2025 Yadav, Man Mohan @ Monu Yadav and Ratnesh Yadav have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 22.01.2025, 23.07.2025, 31.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1249 of 2025, 1140 of 2025, 5557 of 2025 and 25080 of 2025. He further submits that there is criminal history of 23 cases against the applicant and in all the cases he has been released on bail and the alleged criminal history has been explained in para no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant languishing in jail since 13.06.2024.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. He further contended that applicant is habitual offender and having huge criminal history and in case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

6. Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above 3 BAIL No. 9553 of 2025 their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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 I.P.C./209. B.N.S. (v) 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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 in accordance with law.

7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 4 BAIL No. 9553 of 2025

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 9, 2025 Bhanu (Santosh Rai,J.) BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that seven accused persons including applicant were named in the F.I.R. and as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., general role of abduction has been assigned to all the accused persons. He further submits that applicant has not abducted informant or any one and he is not the real beneficiary of so called execution of sale deed or gift deed in his favour. He further submits that brother of informant Raj Bahadur has executed the alleged Bainama/gift deed in favour of his cousin's son-in-law, Ratnesh. He further submits that applicant has not abducted the informant in lieu of ransom. He further submits that a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that named co-accused Suneel Kumar, Satendra 2 BAIL No. 9553 of 2025 Yadav, Man Mohan @ Monu Yadav and Ratnesh Yadav have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 22.01.2025, 23.07.2025, 31.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1249 of 2025, 1140 of 2025, 5557 of 2025 and 25080 of 2025. He further submits that there is criminal history of 23 cases against the applicant and in all the cases he has been released on bail and the alleged criminal history has been explained in para no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant languishing in jail since 13.06.2024.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. He further contended that applicant is habitual offender and having huge criminal history and in case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

6. Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above 3 BAIL No. 9553 of 2025 their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant 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. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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 I.P.C./209. B.N.S. (v) 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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 in accordance with law.

7. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 4 BAIL No. 9553 of 2025

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 9, 2025 Bhanu (Santosh Rai,J.) BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad