# Kamlesh Yadav v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1561
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24930 of 2024
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamlesh-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-53537
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B - Bail - Principles governing
grant or refusal of bail - Applicant a
habitual offender with 52 criminal cases of
cheating and forgery - No explanation for
delay of four years in lodging FIR - Role
as property mediator alleged in fraudulent
sale transaction - Gravity of offence and
antecedents disentitle applicant to bail -
Co-accused's bail not a ground for parity
- Held, discretion to grant bail must be
exercised
judiciously
considering
antecedents,
gravity,
likelihood
of
tampering with evidence and repetition of
offence - Bail refused. (Paras 14, 20, 22,
23, and 25)

HELD:
This Court has taken into consideration of the
fact that the applicant has almost 52 criminal
cases pending against him under section 420
IPC. Under Schedule 1 of the Code or Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), an offence under
Section 420 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable
and is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class,
therefore, the instant offence is serious in
nature. It is also noted that he is habitual
offender of commission of the same nature of
the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is great
apprehension in the mind of the Court that
1562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant upon release on bail may tamper with
evidence and may influence the witnesses.
There are also great apprehension that he may
breach the conditions imposed by this Court and
can repeat the same nature of offence in future.
Taking into the consideration of aforesaid
reasons, this Court cannot take lenient view
while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction.
(Para 22)

It is pertinent to note that co-accused in the
matter who has been released on bail, however,
bearing no resemblance to the present applicant
as he is habitual offender and has criminal
history of 52 cases. (Para 23)

Bail Application rejected. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Kamlesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1561
Question Paper6
Educational Psychology
Question Paper7
Educational Technology and
Research
Question Paper8
English Language and its
Teaching
Question Paper9
Social Science and its Teaching
Question Paper10
Science and Environmental
Education and their Teaching

2. Part II Practical
Practical Practice (First and Second Year)
A. Teaching Practice
B. Work Experience
i. Compulsory Activities
ii. Optional Activities
C. Social cultural and creative work behavior
i. Working with society
ii. Physical education, yoga education and cultural
activities
iii. Painting and fine arts education
iv. computer education

13.
The
difference
in
above
syllabus are substantial. D.El.Ed is more on
understanding Psychology of Children,
Child
Development
and
Childhood,
Counselling and Guidance Environmental
studies etc; whereas D.Ed is more on
general subjects concentrating for upper
primary classes, which includes Child
Development and Work Experience in
teaching practice.

14. It is clearly evident that module
of D.El.Ed where concentration is on Child
Development is of children of elementary
age. It is a very specified module and
curriculum is also very specific and has
rational difference from curriculum of
D.Ed, therefore, D.Ed is not equivalent to
D.El.Ed. Accordingly, there is no reason to
interfere with the impugned order.

15.
Present
writ
petition
is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1561
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24930 of
2024

Kamlesh Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Hari Narayan Singh, Punya Sheel Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B - Bail - Principles governing
grant or refusal of bail - Applicant a
habitual offender with 52 criminal cases of
cheating and forgery - No explanation for
delay of four years in lodging FIR - Role
as property mediator alleged in fraudulent
sale transaction - Gravity of offence and
antecedents disentitle applicant to bail -
Co-accused's bail not a ground for parity
- Held, discretion to grant bail must be
exercised
judiciously
considering
antecedents,
gravity,
likelihood
of
tampering with evidence and repetition of
offence - Bail refused. (Paras 14, 20, 22,
23, and 25)

HELD:
This Court has taken into consideration of the
fact that the applicant has almost 52 criminal
cases pending against him under section 420
IPC. Under Schedule 1 of the Code or Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), an offence under
Section 420 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable
and is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class,
therefore, the instant offence is serious in
nature. It is also noted that he is habitual
offender of commission of the same nature of
the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is great
apprehension in the mind of the Court that
1562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant upon release on bail may tamper with
evidence and may influence the witnesses.
There are also great apprehension that he may
breach the conditions imposed by this Court and
can repeat the same nature of offence in future.
Taking into the consideration of aforesaid
reasons, this Court cannot take lenient view
while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction.
(Para 22)

It is pertinent to note that co-accused in the
matter who has been released on bail, however,
bearing no resemblance to the present applicant
as he is habitual offender and has criminal
history of 52 cases. (Para 23)

Bail Application rejected. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs Sudarshan Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 598

2. Chaman Lal Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2004) 7
SCC 525

3. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs Ashish Chatterjee
& anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496

4. Ms. Y. vs. St. of Raj. & anr., Criminal Appeal
No-649 of 2022 decided on 19/04/2022

5. Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118

6. Jagjeet Singh & ors. Vs Ashish Mishra @
Monu & anr., Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022,
decided on 18.04.2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari
Singh, J.)

1. The applicant through his brother
Ram Balesh Yadav has preferred the
instant bail application under section 439
Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in Case Crime
No. 112 of 2023, under Section 406, 419,
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police
Station - Aims, District - Gorakhpur.

Brief Facts

2, The briefly stated basic facts of the
application are as under:

(i) The applicant has been in jail
since 28.7.2023. The first informant Pushpa
Prajapati lodged a first information report
(for short 'FIR') on 7.9.2025 at 6:07 PM
against the applicant and another person
namely Ajay Sharma, was registered as
Case Crime No. 112 of 2023, under Section
406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC,
Police
Station
-
Aims,
District
-
Gorakhpur.

(ii) It is alleged in the FIR that the
applicant is a property dealer and in lieu of
providing land of Gata No. 112 situated at
village - Bahrampur, Tehsil - Chauri
Chaura, District - Gorakhpur, he has taken
an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.
2,00,000/-
from
complainant
Pushpa
Prajapati. At the time of execution of sale
deed the first informant gave two cheques
amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs.
2,00,000/ in the name of "Vindhyavasini
Traders". After sometime, he returned both
the cheques and stated that the signatures
made on the cheques did not match.
Thereafter, she transferred an amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/- in the account of one Ajay
Sharma, thereby a sum of Rs. 14,50,000/-
paid to the applicant for the said property.
It is further alleged that after purchasing the
said
property,
Pushpa
Prajapati
also
constructed a residential house and has
been residing alongwith family., during that
period she came to know of the fact that the
sale deed was executed by standing
imposter person showing himself to be
Ajay Sharma, real owner of the land. The
applicant had applied for bail before
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2,
Gorakhpur which was rejected vide order
dated 16.6.2024 on the ground of gravity of
offence committed by the applicant is
heinous in nature.
5 All. Kamlesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1563

(iii) Co-accused namely Chandra
Shekhar
Shahi,
Sub
Registrar,
who
registered the alleged sale deed has been
granted bail by the Additional Sessions
Judge/
Special
Judge
(Prevention
of
Corruption Act) (UPSEB), Gorakhpur vide
order dated 7.11.2023 on the ground that he
was not named in the FIR and same sale
deed registered by him has still not been
declared invalid by any court of law.

(iv) There are criminal history of
52 cases against the accused/applicant and
most of the cases are filed against the
accused under Section 420 IPC. Moreover,
out of 52 criminal cases including present
case, applicant has been granted bail and no
charge sheet has been filed against the
accused/applicant in the remaining cases
yet.

Submissions by the counsel for the
applicant.

3. It is submitted that the alleged sale
deed was executed on 11.11.2019 and the
FIR was lodged in the year 2023 after lapse
of 4 years of the incident without
explanation of the delay in lodging the said
FIR. It is vehemently submitted that the
FIR is lodged as after thought with malice
intent.

4. According to the FIR, it is
submitted that alleged amount of Rs.
14,50,000/- was paid to the applicant as
well as to co-accused Ajay Sharma .
However, the applicant received total
amount of Rs. 9,60,000/- in his account and
Rs. 2,00,000/- was received through RTGS
in the account of Ajay Sharma on
4.12.2019.

5. It is submitted that the applicant has
transferred entire amount which was
deposited by the first informant in the
account of the applicant through coaccused Ajay Sharma at the time of
execution of sale deed. After taking entire
consideration of amount of land in
question, co-accused Ajay Sharma has
executed sale deed in favour of first
informant Smt. Pushpa Prajapati, in which
there is no fault of the applicant. It is
contended that the real owner of the subject
property is Ajay Sharma, who has executed
the sale deed. He has also submitted his
Aadhar Card in the office of Sub-Registrar,
therefore, he was not imposter as alleged in
the FIR. There was no imposter person,
who executed the sale deed.

6. It is further submitted that applicant
is not involved in such type of offence. The
first informant has falsely dragged him in
the present case because the applicant is
mediator and received amount in his
account,
but
the
applicant
after
withdrawing the entire amount given the
same to the land owner prior to execution
of sale deed, in which there is no fault of
the applicant.

7. It is also submitted that the
applicant has not committed the offence as
alleged in the FIR. The first informant has
falsely implicated the applicant as accused
in the present case only because he has
introduced the first informant to Ajay
Sharma. It is contended that co-accused
namely Chandra Shekhar Shahi has already
been granted bail by the Additional
Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Prevention
of Corruption Act) (UPSEB), Gorakhpur
vide order dated 7.11.2023 on the ground
that he was not named in the FIR and and
same sale deed has been registered by him
as sale has not been declared invalid by any
court of law. As per FIR, the role of the the
applicant in the instant case is that he
introduced the first informant to the land
1564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
owner for alleged sale deed, therefore, he is
also interested for getting bail by Hon'ble
Court.

8.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
submissions, it is prayed by the counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant that
the applicant may be released on bail
subject to the conditions which this Court
deems fit to impose on the applicant while
granting bail.

Submissions
of
learned
AGA
appearing on behalf of the State.

9. Learned AGA vehemently oppose
the bail application of the applicant on the
ground that there are 52 criminal cases
registered against the applicant and mostly
are registered under Section 420 IPC.

10. It is submitted that during
investigation, the Investigating Officer
recorded the statement of first informant
Smt. Pushpa Prajapati under Section 161
Cr.P.C.
on
10.9.2023
and
she
has
corroborated the same version as in the
FIR.

11. It is submitted that grant of bail to
the co-accused does not have any bearing
in the present case, since the applicant is
the main accused in the matter, he may not
be granted bail since, there is
an
apprehension that he may tamper with the
evidence
or
linger
the
process
of
investigation or trial as he is a habitual
offender.

12. It is further submitted that in view
of the aforesaid submissions, the applicant
has failed to make out a case to release him
on bail as prayed in the instant bail
application.
The
applicant
does
not
deserves any leniency from this Court for
releasing him on bail. The application is
devoid of any merit and is liable to be
rejected.

Analysis and Finding.

13. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the material available on record.

14. At this juncture, before adverting
to the merit of the case, this Court deems it
is pertinent to retrite law pertaining to grant
of bail in various factors which needs to be
taken into consideration for the same.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs.
Surdarshan Singh1, in paragraph nos. 3
and 4 of this judgement, has observed as
under.

"3. Grant of bail though being a
discretionary order - but, however, calls
for exercise of such a discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent
reason cannot be sustained. Needless to
record,however, that the grant of bail is
dependent upon the contextual facts of the
matter being dealt with by the court and
facts, however, do always vary from case to
case...The nature of the offence is one of
the basic considerations for the grant of
bail - more heinous is the crime, the
greater is the chance of rejection of the
bail, though, however, dependent on the
factual matrix of the matter.

4. Apart from the above, certain
other which may be attributed to be
relevant considerations may also be
noticed at this juncture, though however,
the same are only illustrative and not
exhaustive, neither there can be any. The
considerations being:
5 All. Kamlesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1565

 (a) While granting bail the court
has to keep in mind not only the nature of
the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a
conviction and the nature of evidence in
support of the accusations.

(b) Reasonable apprehensions of
the witnesses being tampered with or the
apprehension of there being a threat for the
complainant should also weigh with the
court in the matter grant of bail.

(c) While it is not expected to
have the entire evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge.

(d)
Frivolity
in
prosecution
should always be considered and it is only
the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of
bail, and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of
events, the accused is entitled to an order
of bail."

16. In the case of Chaman Lal Vs.
State of UP And Another2; the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its para-9, has held as
under:

"9: There is a need to indicate in
the
order,
reasons
for
prima
facie
concluding why bail was beng granted,
particularly where an accused was charged
of having committed a serious offence. It is
necessary for the courts dealing with t he
application for bail to consider among
other circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail, they are :

1. The nature of accusation and
the severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence.

2. Reasonable apprehension of
tempering with the witness or apprehension
of threat to the complainant.

3. Prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.

10 Any order dehors of such
reasons suffers from non-applcation of
mind as was noted by this Court in Ram
Goviind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh,
Puran Vs. Rambilas and in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan.

11. Though a conclusive finding
in regard to the points urged by the parties
is not expected of the court considering the
bail application, yet giving reasons is
different
from
discussing
merits
or
demerits. As noted above, at the stage of
granting bail a detailed examination of
evidence and claborate documentation of
the merits of the case is not to be
undertaken., But that does not mean that
while granting bail some reasons for prima
facie concluding why bail was being
granted is not required to be indicated.

17. In the case of Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar vs Ashish Chatterjee & Anr3. the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

Para 09: We are of the opinion
that
the
impugned order
is
clearly
unsustainable. It is trite that this Court
does not normally, interfere with an order
passed by the High Court granting or
rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise
its
discretion
judiciously,
cautiously and strictly in compliance with
the basic principles laid down in a plethora
of decisions of this Court on the point. It is
well
settled
that,
among
other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for
bail are:
1566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) Whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the
accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
the
accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence
being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail. Among
other circumstances.

18. As per the aforesaid judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court eventually held
that while considering for granting bail to
the applicant, it is the duty of the court to
taken into consideration certain factors
such as nature of accusation and severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence, reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witness
or
apprehension
of
threat
to
the
complainant and prima facie satisfaction of
the court in support of the charge.

19. The Supreme Court in the case of
Ms. Y. vs. State of Rajsthan And Anr4;
held that there is no strait jacket formula
for grant of bail and the court shall exercise
its discretion for grant for grant of bail in
accordance
with
the
facts
and
circumstances of the bail application before
it.
The
relevant
paragraphs
no.
8,9,10,11,12,13 and 14 are reproduced
herein bellow.

8. Supreme court has, in a catena
of judgments, outlined the considerations
on the basis of which discretion under
Section 439, CrPC has to be exercised
while granting bail. In Gurcharan Singh v.
State
(Delhi
Administration)5,
this
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as to the
various
parameters
which
must
be
considered while granting bail. Supreme
court held as follows:

"24. ...Even so, the High Court
or the Court of Session will have to
exercise
its
judicial
discretion
in
considering the question of granting of bail
under Section 439(1) CrPC of the new
Code. The overriding considerations in
granting bail to which we adverted to
earlier and which are common both in the
case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1)
CrPC of the new Code are the nature and
gravity of the circumstances in which the
offence is committed; the position and the
status of the accused with reference to the
victim and the witnesses; the likelihood, of
the accused fleeing from justice; of
repeating the offence; of jeopardising his
own life being faced with a grim prospect
of possible conviction in the case; of
tampering with witnesses; the history of the
case as well as of its investigation and
other relevant grounds which, in view of so
many
valuable
factors,
cannot
be
exhaustively set out."

9.The above factors do not
constitute an exhaustive list. The grant of
bail requires the consideration of various
factors which ultimately depends upon the
specific facts and circumstances of the case
before the Court. There is no strait jacket
formula which can ever be prescribed as to
what the relevant factors could be.
However, certain important factors that are
always considered, interalia, relate to
prima facie involvement of the accused,
nature and gravity of the charge, severity
of the punishment, and the character,
5 All. Kamlesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
1567
position and standing of the accused [see
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi6,

10. At the stage of granting bail
the Court is not required to enter into a
detailed analysis of the evidence in the
case. Such an exercise may be undertaken
at the stage of trial.

11. Once bail has been granted,
the Appellate Court is usually slow to
interfere with the same as it pertains to the
liberty of an individual. A Constitution
Bench of this Court in Bihar Legal Support
Society v. Chief Justice of India7,observed
as follows:

"3. ... It is for this reason that the
Apex Court has evolved, as a matter of
selfdiscipline, certain norms to guide it in
the exercise of its discretion in cases where
special leave petition are filed against
orders granting or refusing bail or
anticipatory bail....We reiterate this policy
principle laid down by the bench of this
Court and hold that this Court should not
ordinarily, save in exceptional cases,
interfere with orders granting or refusing
bail or anticipatory bail, because these are
matters in which the High Court should
normally be the final arbiter."
(emphasis supplied)

12. The above principle has been
consistently followed by this Court. In
Prasanta
Kumar
Sarkar
v.
Ashis
Chatterjee8, this Court held as under:

"9. We are of the opinion that the
impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It
is trite that this Court does not, normally,
interfere with an order passed by the High
Court granting or rejecting bail to the
accused. However, it is equally incumbent
upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion
judiciously,cautiously
and
strictly in compliance with the basic
principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is
well
settled
that,
among
other
circumstances, the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for
bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the
accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
the
accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence
being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail.

xxx xxx xxx

10. It is manifest that if the High
Court does not advert to these relevant
considerations and mechanically grants
bail, the said order would suffer from the
vice of non application of mind, rendering
it to be illegal....."

13.
In
Mahipal
v.
Rajesh
Kumar9, this Court followed the holding
in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) and
held as follows:

"17. Where a court considering
an application for bail fails to consider
relevant factors, an appellate court may
justifiably set aside the order granting bail.
An appellate court is thus required to
consider whether the order granting bail
suffers from a nonapplication of mind or is
not borne out from a prima facie view of
the evidence on record. It is thus necessary
for this Court to assess whether, on the
basis of the evidentiary record, there
existed a prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed
1568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the crime, also taking into account the
seriousness of the crime and the severity of
the punishment..."

14. Recently, a three Judges'
Bench of this Court in Jagjeet Singh &
Ors. V. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr10.
in Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022, has
reiterated the factors that the Court must
consider at the time of granting bail under
Section 439 CrPC, as well as highlighted
the circumstances where this Court may
interfere when bail has been granted in
violation of the requirements under the
above mentioned section. Supreme court
observed as follows:

"28. We may, at the outset,
clarify that power to grant bail under
Section 439 of CrPC, is one of wide
amplitude. A High Court or a Sessions
Court, as the case may be, are bestowed
with considerable discretion while deciding
an application for bail. But, as has been
held by this Court on multiple occasions,
this discretion is not unfettered. On the
contrary, the High Court of the Sessions
Court must grant bail after the application
of
a
judicial
mind,
following
wellestablished principles, and not in a
cryptic or mechanical manner..

20. Now adverting to the merits of the
instant case, it is admitted fact that the
present applicant is involved in 52 criminal
cases of the similar nature. The details of
which has been explained by the applicant
himself in paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit
supported with the bail application and
almost all criminal cases are of similar
nature.

21. The details of the antecedents of
applicant are as under:

Sl
No.
FIR / Case Crime No.
Proceedings.
1.
100/2023 u/s 406 IPC
Bail granted on
27.9.2023
2.
79/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
27.9.2023
3.
129/2023 u/s 120-B,
406, 420 IPC
Bail granted on
12.2.2024
4.
77/2023 u/s 406, 420,
504, 506 IPC
Bail granted on
11.10.2023
5.
75/2023 u/s 420, 406,
504, 120-B
Bail granted on
5,10,2023
6.
72/2023 u/s 406, 420,
410, 467, 468, 471,
120-B IPC
Bail granted on
17.10.2023
7.
71/2023 u/s 406, 420,
419, 467, 468, 471,
120 B IPC
Bail granted on
9.10.2023
8.
81/2923 u/s 406, 419,
420, 467, 468, 471,
120-B IPC
Bail granted on
26.10.2023
9.
354/2022 u/s 406, 420,
504, 506 IPC
Bail granted on
27.9.2023
10.
27/2023 u/s 410, 420,
467, 468, 471, 504,
506, 406, 120-B IPC
Bail granted on
28.8.2023
11.
133/2023 u/s 406, 420,
504, 506, 120-B IPC
Bail granted on
13.3.2024
12.
162/2023 u/s 406, 420,
506 IPC
Bail granted on
3,5,2024
13.
74/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
4.5.2024
14.
233/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
4.5.2024
15
185/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
7.5.2024
16.
367/2023 u/s 406, 506
IPC
Bail granted on
7.5.2024
17.
193/2023 u/s 447, 506
IPC
Bail granted on
8.5.2024
18.
268/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
14.5.2024
19.
247/2023 u/s 420, 406,
504, 506 IPC
Bail granted on
16.5.2024
20.
164/2023 u/s 406, 420,
506 IPC
Bail granted on
16.5.2024
21.
187/2023 u/s 406, 420,
506 IPC
Bail granted on
21.5.2024
22.
168/2023 u/s 420, 406,
506 IPC
Bail granted on
18.5.2024
23.
134/2023 u/s 406, 420,
120-B IPC
Bail granted on
14.5.2024
24.
135/2023 u/s 406, 420,
120-B IPC
Bail granted on
23.4.2024
25.
45/2024 u/s 406, 420,
506, 120B IPC
Bail granted on
7.6.2024
26,
145/2023 u/s 406, 420,
504, 506 IPC
Bail granted on
10.6.2024
27.
188/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
11.6.2024
28.
64/2024 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
11.6.2024
5 All. Jumma Shah & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1569
29.
260/2023 u/s 406, 420,
504, 506, 34
Bail granted on
12.6.2024
30.
261/2023 u/s 406, 420,
504, 506, 34 IPC
Bail granted on
12.6.2024
31.
189/2023 u/s 420, 406,
506, 34 IC
Bail granted on
13.6.2024
32.
196/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Bail granted on
13.6.2024
33.
130/2023 u/s 420, 406,
504, 506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
34.
184/2023 u/s 406, 420,
506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
35.
196/2023 u/s 420, 406
IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
36.
250/2023 u/s 406, 420,
506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
37.
128/2023 u/s 420, 406,
504, 506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
38.
156/2023 u/s 420, 406,
504, 506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
39.
163/2023 u/s 420, 406
IPC
Bail application
pending.
40.
246/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
41.
112/2023 u/s 406, 419,
420, 467, 468. 471,
120B IPC
Present Case.
42.
448/2022 u/s 406, 506
IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
43.
128/2023 u/s 406, 420,
504, 506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
44.
222/2023 u/s 3(1) UP
Gangster Act
Charge sheet not
submitted.
45.
19/2020 u/s 419, 420,
504, 506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
46.
154/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
47.
311/2022 u/s 323, 504,
506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
48.
796/2019 u/s 147, 279,
323, 325, 337, 338,
427, 504 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
49.
54/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
50.
487/2013 u/s 147, 148,
323, 342, 427, 504,
506 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
51.
268/2023 u/s 406, 420
IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.
52.
361/2023 u/s 419, 420,
406 IPC
Charge sheet not
submitted.

22. This Court has taken into consideration
of the fact that the applicant has almost 52
criminal cases pending against him under section
420 IPC. Under Schedule 1 of the Code or
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), an offence
under Section 420 IPC is cognizable and nonbailable and is triable by a Magistrate of the First
Class, therefore, the instant offence is serious in
nature. It is also noted that he is habitual offender of
commission of the same nature of the offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC. In view of the
aforesaid facts, there is great apprehension in the
mind of the Court that applicant upon release on
bail may tamper with evidence and may influence
the witnesses. There are also great apprehension
that he may breach the conditions imposed by this
Court and can repeat the same nature of offence in
future. Taking into the consideration of aforesaid
reasons, this Court cannot take lenient view while
exercising its discretionary jurisdiction.

23. It is pertinent to note that co-accused in
the matter who has been released on bail,
however, bearing no resemblance to the present
applicant as he is habitual offender and has
criminal history of 52 cases.

24. Keeping in view his criminal
antecedents, credible material on record to
connect the applicant to the offence at this stage
and laws laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as discussed above. without expressing
any finding or opinion on merit of the case, this
Court is of the view that the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.

25. Accordingly, the instant bail application
is dismissed as devoid of any merit.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1569
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6099 of 2019

Jumma Shah & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent