State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2024.

4. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

02.02.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years and however investigation of the case has been completed but till date charge-sheet has not been submitted in the court, therefore, till date trial of the case could not be even commenced. He further submits, without any fault of the applicant proceedings of the case is being lingered on.

5. He further submits, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail. He further submits, considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that right of speedy trial of applicant has not been violated.

6. He further submits, even applicant has already returned the entire alleged 2 BAIL No. 29341 of 2025 embezzled amount to the complainant.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and applicant cheated the informant and misappropriated about Rs. 40 lakhs.

9. Learned counsel for the informant further submits, however, applicant returned some amount but till date very handsome amount is due upon him but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since

02.02.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years and however investigation of the case has been completed but charge-sheet could not even be filed in the court concerned.

10. They however further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court on merit but it reflects, applicant is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, therefore, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate.

13. Record further suggests that he is detained in jail since February, 2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years and considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, however, on 08.12.2024 Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted the charge- sheet before the Assistant Police Commissioner, Chetganj Varanasi but till date charge-sheet has not been submitted before the court concerned, therefore, prima facie it reflects, fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

14. The law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy 3 BAIL No. 29341 of 2025 trial of the accused then even in serious cases he can be released on bail.

15. Further, however, it reflects, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases with similar allegation but as applicant is in jail for last more than one and half years and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and prima facie it appears, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated, in view of this Court, on the basis of his criminal antecedents his bail application should not be withheld.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in paragraph-10 observed as:- "The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. If the directions in the case of Jugal Kishore (2020) 4 RLW 3386 are to be strictly implemented, the Court may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format."

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant - Devashish Khamaru be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 4 BAIL No. 29341 of 2025

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 26, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Dheeraj Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA-I for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 76 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2024.

4. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

02.02.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years and however investigation of the case has been completed but till date charge-sheet has not been submitted in the court, therefore, till date trial of the case could not be even commenced. He further submits, without any fault of the applicant proceedings of the case is being lingered on.

5. He further submits, right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and on its violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail. He further submits, considering the facts of the case, it cannot be said that right of speedy trial of applicant has not been violated.

6. He further submits, even applicant has already returned the entire alleged 2 BAIL No. 29341 of 2025 embezzled amount to the complainant.

7. He further submits, applicant is not having any criminal history, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and applicant cheated the informant and misappropriated about Rs. 40 lakhs.

9. Learned counsel for the informant further submits, however, applicant returned some amount but till date very handsome amount is due upon him but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that applicant is in jail since

02.02.2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years and however investigation of the case has been completed but charge-sheet could not even be filed in the court concerned.

10. They however further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. This is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court on merit but it reflects, applicant is facing trial for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, therefore, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate.

13. Record further suggests that he is detained in jail since February, 2024 i.e. for last more than one and half years and considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal it reflects, however, on 08.12.2024 Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted the charge- sheet before the Assistant Police Commissioner, Chetganj Varanasi but till date charge-sheet has not been submitted before the court concerned, therefore, prima facie it reflects, fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

14. The law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy 3 BAIL No. 29341 of 2025 trial of the accused then even in serious cases he can be released on bail.

15. Further, however, it reflects, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of two other cases with similar allegation but as applicant is in jail for last more than one and half years and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and prima facie it appears, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated, in view of this Court, on the basis of his criminal antecedents his bail application should not be withheld.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in paragraph-10 observed as:- "The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. If the directions in the case of Jugal Kishore (2020) 4 RLW 3386 are to be strictly implemented, the Court may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format."

17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

19. Let the applicant - Devashish Khamaru be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 4 BAIL No. 29341 of 2025

20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 26, 2025 AK Pandey (Sameer Jain,J.) ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad