High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Alias Rahul Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Srivastava,Rajneesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Sri Anand Dubey, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of one Pradeep Kumar, alleged to be the affected person and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Dubey for one Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0377 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar District -Ayodhya. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is neither vendor nor vendee nor is a marginal witnesses of the sale deed in question and he is not even beneficiary of the same. He submits that he has taken specific plea in paragraph no. 7 of the bail application that the applicant is not named in the first information report and he did not derive any benefit directly or indirectly from the sale deed. He also submits that only evidence against the applicant is that a receipt of deposit of amount Rs. 25,00,000/- is received from his possession whereas, fact remains that the account payee cheque was issued. He also submits that the allegation for committing offence of impersonation is against the other accused persons and as such, the case of present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the others. He next added that the applicant has three cases criminal history which has been explained in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since

05.11.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Sri Anand Dubey counsel appearing for one Pradeep Kumar, who said to be an affected person. It is submitted that Rs. 99,000/- is in-credited in the account of the present applicant from the account of wife of one Roshan, who is one of the accused person in this matter. He also added that the receipt of deposit of the amount in question is also recovered from his possession and thus, his involvement in the offence is apparent and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that there are three cases criminal history against the applicant and there is ample evidence against the applicant and he is involved in committing offence, thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it reveals that the applicant is neither seller, purchaser or the marginal witness of the sale deed in question and it has specifically been stated in paragraph no. 7 of the bail application that he never derived any benefit from sale consideration. This Court has also noticed the fact that except apart a receipt recovered from the possession of the present applicant, he is not a beneficiary; further, the applicant has explained three cases criminal history and there is no complaint that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings; applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2024 coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Alok Kumar Singh Alias Rahul Singh involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh Alias Rahul Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Srivastava,Rajneesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Sri Anand Dubey, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of one Pradeep Kumar, alleged to be the affected person and the same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Dubey for one Pradeep Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0377 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar District -Ayodhya. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is neither vendor nor vendee nor is a marginal witnesses of the sale deed in question and he is not even beneficiary of the same. He submits that he has taken specific plea in paragraph no. 7 of the bail application that the applicant is not named in the first information report and he did not derive any benefit directly or indirectly from the sale deed. He also submits that only evidence against the applicant is that a receipt of deposit of amount Rs. 25,00,000/- is received from his possession whereas, fact remains that the account payee cheque was issued. He also submits that the allegation for committing offence of impersonation is against the other accused persons and as such, the case of present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the others. He next added that the applicant has three cases criminal history which has been explained in paragraph no. 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since

05.11.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Sri Anand Dubey counsel appearing for one Pradeep Kumar, who said to be an affected person. It is submitted that Rs. 99,000/- is in-credited in the account of the present applicant from the account of wife of one Roshan, who is one of the accused person in this matter. He also added that the receipt of deposit of the amount in question is also recovered from his possession and thus, his involvement in the offence is apparent and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that there are three cases criminal history against the applicant and there is ample evidence against the applicant and he is involved in committing offence, thus, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it reveals that the applicant is neither seller, purchaser or the marginal witness of the sale deed in question and it has specifically been stated in paragraph no. 7 of the bail application that he never derived any benefit from sale consideration. This Court has also noticed the fact that except apart a receipt recovered from the possession of the present applicant, he is not a beneficiary; further, the applicant has explained three cases criminal history and there is no complaint that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings; applicant is languishing in jail since 05.11.2024 coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Alok Kumar Singh Alias Rahul Singh involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Mayank MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench