State of U.P. and Another v. Party

1. Heard Sri Deepak Pandey and Sri Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 40A of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B, 34 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Nagra, District Ballia, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and as per allegation, applicant was Block Development Officer and he alongwith other public servants misappropriated the public fund related to Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. He next submits, even it reflects on the basis of general allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith others.

4. He further submitted that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 but till date investigation of the case with regard to the applicant is pending though almost 20 years have been passed.

5. He further submitted that however, applicant was fully co-operating with the investigation but in spite of that Investigating Officer filed an application before the court concerned stating that applicant is not co-operating with the investigation and thereafter process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued 2 BAIL No. 31853 of 2025 against the applicant and when applicant challenged the order passed under section 82 Cr.P.C. before this Court vide application u/s 528 BNSS No. 298104 of 2025 then this Court on 22.8.2025 directed the applicant to appear before the court concerned and when in compliance of the order dated

22.8.2025 passed by this Court applicant appeared before court concerned then he has been sent to jail and when applicant filed bail application before the court concerned then his bail application has also been dismissed.

6. He further submitted that after twenty years of the FIR, there is no need to detain the applicant any further in the instant matter.

7. He further submitted that applicant was not absconder and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued due to the mischievous attitude adopted by the Investigating Officer of the case.

8. He further submitted that applicant is giving an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will abide by all the conditions imposed upon him.

9. He further submitted that applicant ensures the court that after released on bail he will regularly attend the trial court either in-person or through his counsel on each and every date fixed by the Court.

10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of seven cases to his credit but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. He next submits, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 1.9.2025 i.e. for last more than one and half months.

11. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

13. However, as per allegation applicant was Block Development Officer and he alongwith other accused misappropriated the public fund related to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but it reflects only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicant. 3 BAIL No. 31853 of 2025

14. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 but surprisingly till date against the applicant not even the charge sheet could be filed.

15. Record further suggests that however during investigation on the application moved by the Investigating Officer process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant but against the order passed under section 82 Cr.P.C. when applicant filed application before this Court under section 528 BNSS then this Court after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case directed him to appear before the court concerned and pursuant to the order passed by this Court when applicant appeared before the court concerned then he has been sent to jail. Considering the fact that applicant has been sent to jail after about 20 years from the date of lodgement of the FIR this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after such long gap there is no occasion to further detain the applicant in jail specially considering the fact that applicant has given an undertaking that if he will release on bail then he will abide by the conditions imposed upon him.

16. Further, apart from the present case, however, applicant is having criminal history of seven cases to his credit but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

17. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be withheld. (See: Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763).

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

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

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

21. Let the applicant-Ram Rekha Singh, 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:- 4 BAIL No. 31853 of 2025 (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.

22. 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.

23. 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. October 15, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Deepak Pandey and Sri Dinesh Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 40A of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B, 34 IPC and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Nagra, District Ballia, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and as per allegation, applicant was Block Development Officer and he alongwith other public servants misappropriated the public fund related to Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false. He next submits, even it reflects on the basis of general allegation applicant has been roped in the present matter alongwith others.

4. He further submitted that however, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 but till date investigation of the case with regard to the applicant is pending though almost 20 years have been passed.

5. He further submitted that however, applicant was fully co-operating with the investigation but in spite of that Investigating Officer filed an application before the court concerned stating that applicant is not co-operating with the investigation and thereafter process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued 2 BAIL No. 31853 of 2025 against the applicant and when applicant challenged the order passed under section 82 Cr.P.C. before this Court vide application u/s 528 BNSS No. 298104 of 2025 then this Court on 22.8.2025 directed the applicant to appear before the court concerned and when in compliance of the order dated

22.8.2025 passed by this Court applicant appeared before court concerned then he has been sent to jail and when applicant filed bail application before the court concerned then his bail application has also been dismissed.

6. He further submitted that after twenty years of the FIR, there is no need to detain the applicant any further in the instant matter.

7. He further submitted that applicant was not absconder and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued due to the mischievous attitude adopted by the Investigating Officer of the case.

8. He further submitted that applicant is giving an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will abide by all the conditions imposed upon him.

9. He further submitted that applicant ensures the court that after released on bail he will regularly attend the trial court either in-person or through his counsel on each and every date fixed by the Court.

10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of seven cases to his credit but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. He next submits, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 1.9.2025 i.e. for last more than one and half months.

11. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

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

13. However, as per allegation applicant was Block Development Officer and he alongwith other accused misappropriated the public fund related to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but it reflects only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicant. 3 BAIL No. 31853 of 2025

14. Further, FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 but surprisingly till date against the applicant not even the charge sheet could be filed.

15. Record further suggests that however during investigation on the application moved by the Investigating Officer process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant but against the order passed under section 82 Cr.P.C. when applicant filed application before this Court under section 528 BNSS then this Court after considering entire facts and circumstances of the case directed him to appear before the court concerned and pursuant to the order passed by this Court when applicant appeared before the court concerned then he has been sent to jail. Considering the fact that applicant has been sent to jail after about 20 years from the date of lodgement of the FIR this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that after such long gap there is no occasion to further detain the applicant in jail specially considering the fact that applicant has given an undertaking that if he will release on bail then he will abide by the conditions imposed upon him.

16. Further, apart from the present case, however, applicant is having criminal history of seven cases to his credit but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

17. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be withheld. (See: Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763).

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

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

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

21. Let the applicant-Ram Rekha Singh, 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:- 4 BAIL No. 31853 of 2025 (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.

22. 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.

23. 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. October 15, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad