State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Party(s)

First statement of the applicant was recorded on 07.03.2007, under Section 161 Cr.P.C, thereafter, again on 19.02.2009, his statement was recorded. There was no occasion for the investigating officer to arrest the applicant, however, only for the purposes of filing the chargesheet, he took non-bailable warrant from the court, arrested the applicant and filed the chargesheet in the year 2025, relating to an incident which admittedly took place in the year 2005.

4. He further submits that the applicant is not the maker of alleged acknowledgments. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 09.09.2025. The applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in paragraph- 31 of the 2 BAIL No. 10249 of 2025 bail application, in which he has been acquitted.

5. It is further submitted that without there being any occasion for the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicant, he has been arrested and also the ingredients to attract offence under Section 467 I.P.C are missing. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but he could not assign any reason for the arrest of the applicant after almost two decades, more so when the statement of the applicant has been recorded in the year 2007 and thereafter in the year 2009..

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since

09.09.2025; as also the fact that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in paragarph-31 of the bail application; the fact that chargesheeet has been filed, the fact that the statement of the applicant has been recorded by the Investigating Officer as also the fact that the incident is 20 years old, and it took almost two decades to complete the investigation and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant Gyanendra Singh, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 77 of 2006, Under Sections- 407, 420, 109, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station- Sujauli, District- Bahraich, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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 3 BAIL No. 10249 of 2025 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. (v) The applicant 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 in accordance with law. (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 10, 2025 DiVYa (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

First statement of the applicant was recorded on 07.03.2007, under Section 161 Cr.P.C, thereafter, again on 19.02.2009, his statement was recorded. There was no occasion for the investigating officer to arrest the applicant, however, only for the purposes of filing the chargesheet, he took non-bailable warrant from the court, arrested the applicant and filed the chargesheet in the year 2025, relating to an incident which admittedly took place in the year 2005.

4. He further submits that the applicant is not the maker of alleged acknowledgments. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 09.09.2025. The applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in paragraph- 31 of the 2 BAIL No. 10249 of 2025 bail application, in which he has been acquitted.

5. It is further submitted that without there being any occasion for the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicant, he has been arrested and also the ingredients to attract offence under Section 467 I.P.C are missing. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but he could not assign any reason for the arrest of the applicant after almost two decades, more so when the statement of the applicant has been recorded in the year 2007 and thereafter in the year 2009..

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since

09.09.2025; as also the fact that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in paragarph-31 of the bail application; the fact that chargesheeet has been filed, the fact that the statement of the applicant has been recorded by the Investigating Officer as also the fact that the incident is 20 years old, and it took almost two decades to complete the investigation and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant Gyanendra Singh, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 77 of 2006, Under Sections- 407, 420, 109, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C, Police Station- Sujauli, District- Bahraich, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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 3 BAIL No. 10249 of 2025 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. (v) The applicant 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 in accordance with law. (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 10, 2025 DiVYa (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench