High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. 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. 352 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station- Bakshi Ka Talab (B.K.T.), District - Lucknow.

3. 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 there was dispute in between the parties with respect to some amount, therefore, the FIR has been lodged. Thereafter, by a compromise deed dated 22.05.2025, the matter has been settled between the parties and Rs.10,00000/- has also been given to the informant. He also submits that one of the co-accused namely Subhash Kumar Sahu @ Subhash Sahu and the present applicant approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4584 of 2025 wherein the order was passed on 27.05.2025 and the matter has been referred to the Senior Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise deed fixing the date for 08.07.2025. The order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4584 of 2025 is reproduced here-in-below:

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 4 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ravi Pratap Singh learned counsel for respondent no.4.

3. This petition seeks issuance of a writ for quashing the F.I.R. dated 17.11.2024 bearing Case Crime/FIR No.0352 of 2024, under Sections 420 I.P.C., Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-1, which is an original compromise deed entered into between the petitioners and opposite party no.4.

5. The counsel for both the parties state that parties have entered into a compromise and they are not willing to contest the case against each other.

6. So as to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed, let the original deed of compromise be sent to the Senior Registrar of this Court. On 12.06.2025 parties shall appear before the Senior Registrar for the purpose of verification of compromise deed as well as parties.

7. The Senior Registrar of this Court after due verification shall submit his report before this Court.

8. List this case on 08.07.2025 along with the report of the Senior Registrar.

9. Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime number.

10. When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, shall be shown in the cause list as appearing for opposite party no.4.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that since the matter has been settled in between the parties, therefore, if the criminal proceedings are being allowed against the applicant, that would be harassment of the applicant. He also submits that the applicant has criminal history of four cases which has been mentioned in paragraph No. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025 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.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the matter has been settled in between the parties, therefore, if the criminal proceedings are being allowed against the applicant, that would be harassment of the applicant; the applicant has criminal history of four cases which has been mentioned in paragraph No. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence 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.

7. 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.

8. Let the applicant- Ram Sumiran 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:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (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. 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; (iii) 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 (iv) 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 :- 25.6.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. 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. 352 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station- Bakshi Ka Talab (B.K.T.), District - Lucknow.

3. 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 there was dispute in between the parties with respect to some amount, therefore, the FIR has been lodged. Thereafter, by a compromise deed dated 22.05.2025, the matter has been settled between the parties and Rs.10,00000/- has also been given to the informant. He also submits that one of the co-accused namely Subhash Kumar Sahu @ Subhash Sahu and the present applicant approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4584 of 2025 wherein the order was passed on 27.05.2025 and the matter has been referred to the Senior Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise deed fixing the date for 08.07.2025. The order dated 27.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4584 of 2025 is reproduced here-in-below:

1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 4 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ravi Pratap Singh learned counsel for respondent no.4.

3. This petition seeks issuance of a writ for quashing the F.I.R. dated 17.11.2024 bearing Case Crime/FIR No.0352 of 2024, under Sections 420 I.P.C., Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

4. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-1, which is an original compromise deed entered into between the petitioners and opposite party no.4.

5. The counsel for both the parties state that parties have entered into a compromise and they are not willing to contest the case against each other.

6. So as to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed, let the original deed of compromise be sent to the Senior Registrar of this Court. On 12.06.2025 parties shall appear before the Senior Registrar for the purpose of verification of compromise deed as well as parties.

7. The Senior Registrar of this Court after due verification shall submit his report before this Court.

8. List this case on 08.07.2025 along with the report of the Senior Registrar.

9. Till the next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime number.

10. When the case is next listed, the name of Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, shall be shown in the cause list as appearing for opposite party no.4.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that since the matter has been settled in between the parties, therefore, if the criminal proceedings are being allowed against the applicant, that would be harassment of the applicant. He also submits that the applicant has criminal history of four cases which has been mentioned in paragraph No. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025 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.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the matter has been settled in between the parties, therefore, if the criminal proceedings are being allowed against the applicant, that would be harassment of the applicant; the applicant has criminal history of four cases which has been mentioned in paragraph No. 23 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence 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.

7. 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.

8. Let the applicant- Ram Sumiran 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:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (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. 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; (iii) 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 (iv) 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 :- 25.6.2025 (Manoj K.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench