Allahabad High Court
Shamshad Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30575 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4497 of 2025 Applicant :- Shamshad Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Maurya,Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State while power on behalf of informant has been filed by Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra and Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocates which is taken on record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.58 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Kamrauli, District Amethi.
3. As per contents of FIR, applicant stand accused of committing forgeries in official documents on the basis of which he has procured mutation in his favour with regard to agricultural property in question. It has been alleged that the said property in fact belonged to the informant and was her ancestral property.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegation levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that primary gist of allegation pertains to mutation entries in revenue records and for which purpose objections filed are already under consideration before the revenue courts. It is submitted that an unnecessary criminal colour is being sought to be given to a purely civil dispute. It is submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and learned counsel for informant have opposed bail application with the submission that the aspect of forged mutation entries on the basis of forged documents submitted by applicant are clearly evident in view of the fact that the father of informant was earlier recorded over the property in question and therefore there was no occasion for the said property to be recorded in favour of applicant. It is also submitted that earlier the applicant had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.3050 of 2025 in which liberty has been granted to applicant to apply for bail.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that primary gist of allegation levelled in the FIR pertains to entries made in the revenue records by means of mutation on the basis of documents which are alleged to be fabricated. The aspect of civil dispute being given a criminal colour requires consideration in view of the fact that proceedings before revenue authorities are admittedly maintained. Applicant had earlier also filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3183 of 2024 in which he was provided protection by means of order dated 03.05.2024. Admittedly, applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Shamshad Khan involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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. 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/her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Subodh/-