State of U.P. vs Party(s)

Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, during pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submitted that applicant Rukesh Kumar, who is named in the First Information Report, is co-sharer of Gata No.2314 having area 1.1150 hectare and Gata no.2311 having area 2.00 hectare as mentioned in the first information report. He further submitted that he has sold of his own share of the disputed land. He did not receive any kind of economic benefit from the informant. The matter is related to civil dispute. The informant filed civil suit before the concerned court having jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to specify that how many amount or money was given in lieu of transaction to the accused applicant. He further submitted that he recently filed civil suit to cancel sale deed. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 16.08.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that 2 BAIL No. 32787 of 2025 applicant Rupesh Kumar has represented himself as Rameshwar Singh and he sold the whole area of the disputed gatas whereas applicant is shareholder of half of the disputed land. They further contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Inder Mohan Goswai and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases." In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673, the Apex Court has again held that "Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence."

6. 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; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is likely to be allowed. Further 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 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 sureties each in the like amount the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. 3 BAIL No. 32787 of 2025 (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.

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 7, 2025 Asha (Santosh Rai,J.) ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, during pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submitted that applicant Rukesh Kumar, who is named in the First Information Report, is co-sharer of Gata No.2314 having area 1.1150 hectare and Gata no.2311 having area 2.00 hectare as mentioned in the first information report. He further submitted that he has sold of his own share of the disputed land. He did not receive any kind of economic benefit from the informant. The matter is related to civil dispute. The informant filed civil suit before the concerned court having jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to specify that how many amount or money was given in lieu of transaction to the accused applicant. He further submitted that he recently filed civil suit to cancel sale deed. He has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 16.08.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that 2 BAIL No. 32787 of 2025 applicant Rupesh Kumar has represented himself as Rameshwar Singh and he sold the whole area of the disputed gatas whereas applicant is shareholder of half of the disputed land. They further contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Inder Mohan Goswai and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "This Court again cautioned about a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases." In the matter of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673, the Apex Court has again held that "Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence."

6. 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; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is likely to be allowed. Further 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 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 sureties each in the like amount the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. 3 BAIL No. 32787 of 2025 (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.

8. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. October 7, 2025 Asha (Santosh Rai,J.) ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad