Sukhvindra Singh v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 313
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. It is admitted fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.03.2025 and is a man of clean antecedents. The charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the competent court. The applicant was not named in the FIR and co-accused…
Judgment
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR. His name was disclosed on arrest of co-accused persons by the police on the information received from the informer but no recovery was made by the police from the possession of the applicant. It is also submitted that co-accused persons namely Sikandar, Rahul, Mohit and Rajan Luthara have already been released on bail vide order dated 28.11.2024, 21.09.2024, 21.11.2024 and 15.05.2025 respectively by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the applicant is a man of clean antecedents and has no previous criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 08.03.2025. It is next submitted that after completion of the investigation police has filed charge-sheet on 16.04.2025 and cognizance has been taken on 17.04.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting the bail. He has prayed for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State who has accepted notice in advance vehemently opposed the instant bail application but has not contradicted the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Operative part
It is admitted fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.03.2025 and is a man of clean antecedents. The charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the competent court. The applicant was not named in the FIR and co-accused persons who were named in the FIR have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as stated above. It is also undertaken that the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court. Taking into consideration all entirety of the matter as discussed above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Sukhvindra Singh who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Pratima (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) PRATIMA AGRAHARI PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 420, 467, 468, 471; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 19 May 2025. The bench was CHANDRA DHARI SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.