# Rajnikant Shukla v. State of U.P. 1668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1667
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40954 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajnikant-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-1668-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-53324
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B - Bail - Delay in lodging FIR
- Counter-blast to earlier complaint -
Applicant accused of cheating and forgery
in alleged sale of teaching post - Six-year
delay unexplained - Criminal history not
resulting
in
conviction
-
Pre-trial
incarceration and Article 21 - Imposition
of monetary condition on bail deprecated
- Held, prolonged custody without trial
violates Article 21 - Delay in FIR and
absence of conviction entitle applicant to
bail - Courts not to act as recovery agents
or impose deposit conditions for bail.
(Paras 5, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19)

HELD:
It is a fundamental principle of natural justice
that accused of an offence is presumed to be
innocent till he is convicted. Thus though the
applicant herein has been involved in various
cases he has not been convicted in any of the
cases till date. Therefore a presumption of
innocence is in his favour. Pre trial incarceration
is a serious matter, which is violative of the
fundamental right of an accused. (Para 15)

The Apex Court has deprecated the practice of
imposing the amount as a condition for payment
as a condition for release on bail at pre trial
stage. It cannot be said that the amount alleged
to be paid by the complainant was actually paid
to the accused at this stage. In such
circumstances direction for payment cannot be
imposed while granting bail to the applicant.
(Para 16)

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and considering the case in its entirety
specifically the delay in lodging the FIR that too
as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the
applicant against the relatives of the informant
and further that though there is criminal history
but in none of the those cases the applicant has
been convicted so far and out of 34 cases 11
cases are under section 138 of the N.I. Act,
which arise out of civil transaction between the
parties and cannot be said to be a criminal case
in strict sense. (Para 18)

Bail Application allowed. (E-14)

List of cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Rajnikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
1667
dead body and he stated that he had conducted
the postmortem examination and he has
mentioned in the postmortem examination
report
that
the
cause
of
death
was
cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic lung
disease. However, he had suffered lung
infection as he had to remain hospitalized for a
long period due to the injures suffered by him.

15. The learned AGA has produced
before the Court the statements of all the three
injured persons. The injured Mohd. Athar
stated that the other accused persons had
assaulted him on the exhortation of the
applicant. Mohd. Nazar (the deceased) stated
that all the accused persons had beaten up his
son and him.

16. It is relevant to note that Parvez
Khan, against whom the allegation of making
assault with an axe has been levelled, has
already been granted bail by the Session
Court.

17. Having considered the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the fact that the deceased died two
months and eighteen days after the incident
and the cause of death has been opined to be
cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic lung
disease; that the applicant is a 55 years old
person and the person against whom the
allegation of making assault with an axe has
been levelled has already been granted bail by
the Session Court whereas the allegation
against the applicant is of exhortation only and
the other persons have received simple
injuries, I am of the view that the applicant is
entitled to be granted on anticipatory bail.

18. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail
application stands allowed.

19. In the event of arrest/appearance of
applicant- Nafees Ahmad before the learned
Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he/she
shall be released on anticipatory bail on his/her
furnishing personal bond and two solvent
sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the
following conditions and subject to any other
conditions that may be fixed by the Trial
Court:

(i) that the applicant shall make
himself/herself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii) that 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;

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave
India without the previous permission of the
court.

(iv) that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed, unless
personal presence is exempted; and

(v) that the applicant shall not
pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1667
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40954 of
2023

Rajnikant Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
1668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Abhishek
Kumar
Mishra,
Chandrakesh
Mishra , Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Ghanshyam Das Mishra

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B - Bail - Delay in lodging FIR
- Counter-blast to earlier complaint -
Applicant accused of cheating and forgery
in alleged sale of teaching post - Six-year
delay unexplained - Criminal history not
resulting
in
conviction
-
Pre-trial
incarceration and Article 21 - Imposition
of monetary condition on bail deprecated
- Held, prolonged custody without trial
violates Article 21 - Delay in FIR and
absence of conviction entitle applicant to
bail - Courts not to act as recovery agents
or impose deposit conditions for bail.
(Paras 5, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 19)

HELD:
It is a fundamental principle of natural justice
that accused of an offence is presumed to be
innocent till he is convicted. Thus though the
applicant herein has been involved in various
cases he has not been convicted in any of the
cases till date. Therefore a presumption of
innocence is in his favour. Pre trial incarceration
is a serious matter, which is violative of the
fundamental right of an accused. (Para 15)

The Apex Court has deprecated the practice of
imposing the amount as a condition for payment
as a condition for release on bail at pre trial
stage. It cannot be said that the amount alleged
to be paid by the complainant was actually paid
to the accused at this stage. In such
circumstances direction for payment cannot be
imposed while granting bail to the applicant.
(Para 16)

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and considering the case in its entirety
specifically the delay in lodging the FIR that too
as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the
applicant against the relatives of the informant
and further that though there is criminal history
but in none of the those cases the applicant has
been convicted so far and out of 34 cases 11
cases are under section 138 of the N.I. Act,
which arise out of civil transaction between the
parties and cannot be said to be a criminal case
in strict sense. (Para 18)

Bail Application allowed. (E-14)

List of cases cited:

1. R.D. Upadhyay Vs St. of A.P., 1996 0
Supreme Court (SC) 624

2. Ram Gopal Gautam VS St. of Raj. & anr.
(judgement dated 1.2.2021 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 95 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.)
4166 of 2020

3. Rabi Prakash Vs St. of Odisha, SLP (Crl.) No.
4169 of 2023, decided on 13.07.2023

4. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3
SCC 22

5. Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar Vs. St. of
Bihar & anr. (judgement dated 6.1.2025 passed
in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.
13083/2023

6. Moti Ram & ors. Vs. St. of M.P. 1978 4 SCC 47

7. U.N. Gupta Vs St. of Bihar, Criminal Appeal
No. 3067 of 2024, decided on 22.07.2024

8. Ramesh Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi),
(2023) 7 SCC 461

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Daya Shanker Mishra,
learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Chandrakesh Mishra for the applicant, Shri
Ghanshyam Das Mishra, learned counsel
for the informant and Shri D.P.S. Chauhan,
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been
filed by the applicant seeking his release on
5 All. Rajnikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
1669
bail in Case Crime No. 292 of 2022 under
sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B IPC police station George Town,
Prayagraj.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on
8.8.2022 the informant Smt. Shikha Mishra
has lodged the instant FIR stating therein
that an advertisement was issued for filling
up of the post of Asstt. Teacher (English) in
Shri Shakti Vidyapeeth, Junior High
School, Bendo Karchchana, Allahabad. The
applicant was the Manager of the said
Institution/School at that point of time. In
pursuance of the said advertisement she
went to the School and met the applicant.
Thereafter the applicant has taken her to his
house where they talked to each other and
also other family members of the applicant.
Thereafter she had applied for the said post
and in connection with the appointment on
the said post the applicant and his wife has
demanded Rs.20,00,000/- and the deal was
finalized for Rs.15,00,000/- and informant
has given Rs.15,00,000/- in cash in the
presence of the family members of the
applicant.
Subsequently
though
the
appointment letter was issued in her favour.
However,
a
further
demand
of
Rs.5,00,000/- was made stating that only
after making the payment of Rs.5,00,000/-
she will be allowed to join in the School.
She could not fulfil the demand of of
Rs.5,00,000/-
therefore
she
was
not
allowed to join in the School. Thereafter
neither she has been allowed to join in the
School nor the amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
paid by her has been returned. Therefore,
after about 6 years of the incident the
instant F.I.R. has been lodged by the
informant against the applicant and other
family members of the applicant.

4. It is submitted by learned senior
counsel appearing for the applicant that
there is no plausible explanation of long
delay of about 6 years in lodging the FIR.
The applicant has not taken any amount, as
alleged in the FIR. The applicant has been
falsely implicated in the said case due to
enmity. It is further submitted that relatives
of the informant had kidnapped the
applicant on 17.6.2021 and in connection
of the said offence an FIR being Case
Crime No. 322 of 2021 under section 364
IPC was got registered by the applicant
against the relatives of the informant in
which the said relatives of the informant
were arrested, therefore, as a counter blast
to the said FIR, the instant FIR has been
lodged by the informant against the
applicant herein on false allegations. It is
further submitted that with regard to the
alleged payment made by the informant to
the applicant there is no eye witness. The
allegations which have been made by the
informant itself is an offence against the
informant for which she is also liable to be
prosecuted.

5. Learned senior counsel has further
submitted that in the instant case the charge
sheet has been submitted on 18.3.2023 and
the cognizance has been taken. However,
till date no witness has been examined.
Therefore, there is no chance of the
conclusion of the trial of the instant case in
near future, therefore, by keeping the
applicant in confinement during the trial for
a long period is violation of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. In support of his
submission
he
has
relied
upon
the
judgement of the Apex Court in the cases
of R.D. Upadhyay V. State of A.P. 1996 0
Supreme (SC) 624; Ram Gopal Gautam V.
State
of
Rajasthan
and
another
(judgement dated 1.2.2021 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 95 of 2021 arising
out of SLP (Crl.) 4166 of 2020 by the
Apex Court and Rabi Prakash V. The
1670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State
of
Odisha
(judgement
dated
13.7.2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 4169
of 2023.

6. With regard to the criminal history
of the applicant it has been explained that
the cases relied upon by the opposite side
are subsequent to the registration of the
instant case, therefore, the same cannot be
treated as a criminal history of the
applicant. It is further submitted that the
applicant has not yet been convicted in any
case till date. Learned senior counsel has
further relying upon the judgement of the
Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and another 2018 3 SCC
22, submits that the bail is a rule and
rejection of bail is an exception.

7. Learned senior counsel has also
relied upon the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs.
State of U.P. and another 2020 11 SCC
648 and submits that merely because there
is criminal history of the applicant, the bail
cannot be denied to him. He further
submitted that though in two cases the
applicant has been granted bail subject to
deposit of 25% of the amount involved in
those cases, however, relying upon the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar and another (judgement
dated 6.1.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 13083/2023
and Moti Ram and others Vs. State of
M.P. 1978 4 SCC 47, submitted that the
unreasonable conditions for the release of
an accused on bail cannot be imposed.

8. Relying upon the judgement of the
Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar
Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2023 7 SCC
461, learned senior counsel has submitted
that the Court cannot imposed condition of
deposit of heavy amount, as a condition for
bail.

9. Per contra, Shri Ghanshyam Das
Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
informant submitted that initially the FIR
was registered under section 419, 420 and
406 IPC. However, during investigation it
was transpired that the said appointment
letter, which was given by the applicant
was a fake and forged document, thus
sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B have also
been added. He further submitted that
informant has given Rs.15,00,000/- in cash
just four days prior to the date when the
appointment letter was given to her by the
applicant. Thus a prima facie case has been
made out against the applicant. It is further
submitted that for the offence of similar
nature the applicant has been granted bail
on deposit of 25% of the amount involved
in those cases. The applicant is also having
criminal history of 34 cases, therefore, he is
a habitual offender and if he is released on
bail he will involve himself in other
offence. Thus the learned counsel for the
informant has prayed for rejection of the
bail application.

10. Learned A.G.A.for the State has
opposed the bail application relying upon
the charge sheet submitted against the
applicant.

11. Having heard the rival submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, this court has carefully gone
through the record of the case.

12. In R.D. Upadhya (supra), the
Apex Court has held that a speedy trial is
gauranteed as fundamental rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and the following directions have been
issued:
5 All. Rajnikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
1671

"So far as the cases regarding
attempt to murder are concerned, we direct
that the cases which are pending for more
than 2 years, the under-trials shall be
released
on
bail
forthwith
to
the
satisfaction of the respective trial courts.
Persons facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft,
Cheating,
Arms
Act,
Counterfeiting,
Custom, Under Section 326 IPC, Under
Section 324 IPC, Riots and Under Section
354 IPC who are in jail for a period of
more than one year, shall be released on
bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial
courts concerned. There may be cases
where the under-trial persons may not be in
a position to furnish sureties etc. In those
cases, the trial courts may consider-
keeping in view the facts of each case
especially the period spent in jail-releasing
them on bail by furnishing person bonds.

We make it clear that it shall not
be necessary for any of the under-trials to
move application for bail. The court shall,
suo moto, on the authority of this Court's
order, consider the bail cases. This shall be
done by all the courts concerned within two
weeks of the receipt of this order. We give
liberty to all concerned to approach this
Court for further directions, if necessary."

13. In Rabi Prakash (supra), the Apex
Court
has
held
that
the
prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the
most precious fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and in
such a situation, the conditional liberty must
override the statutory embargo created and
holding the aforesaid, the Apex Court has
issued direction for the release of the accused
therein.

14. In Dataram (supra), the Apex
Court has held in paragraphs 6 and 7 as
under:

"The historical background of the
provision for bail has been elaborately and
lucidly explained in a recent decision
delivered in NikeshTarachand Shah V.
Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609
going back to the days of the Magna Carta.
In that decision, reference was made to
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed
that it was held way back in Nagendra v.
King-Emperor, AIR1924 Cal 476 that bail
is not be withheld as a punishment.
Reference was also made to Emperor v.
Hutchinson, AIR 1931 All 356 wherein it
was observed that grant of bail is the rule
and refusal is the exception. The provision
for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is
almost a century old, going back to
colonial days."

15. It is a fundamental principle of
natural justice that accused of an offence is
presumed to be innocent till he is
convicted. Thus though the applicant herein
has been involved in various cases he has
not been convicted in any of the cases till
date. Therefore a presumption of innocence
is in his favour. Pre trial incarceration is a
serious matter, which is violative of the
fundamental right of an accused.

16. The Apex Court has deprecated the
practice of imposing the amount as a
condition for payment as a condition for
release on bail at pre trial stage. It cannot
be said that the amount alleged to be paid
by the complainant was actually paid to the
accused at this stage. In such circumstances
direction for payment cannot be imposed
while granting bail to the applicant.

17. The Apex Court in the case of
U.N. Gupta Vs. State of Bihar (ljudgement
dated 22.7.2024 passed in Criminal appeal
1672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 3067 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 5916 of 2024 has made the following
observation in paragraphs 3,4 and 5:

"3. The direction for deposit is in
the teeth of a plethora of decisions of this
Court. We can profitably refer to a few of
them, viz. Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2023) 7 SCC 461; St. George
Dsouza Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023)
SCC OnLine SC 1940 and Dilip Singh vs.
State of M.P. and Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 779.

4. Learned counsel appearing for
the respondent no. 2-complainant submits
that since the High Court was invited by
the appellants to impose a condition for
depositing 25% of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees
twenty lakhs only), the impugned order
does not merit interference.

5. The High Court, in our
considered view, ought to have examined
the question of grant of bail without being
swayed by the submission on behalf of the
appellants. Having regard to the settled
principles of law laid down in the decisions
refereed to above, inter alia, to the effect
that the courts, exercising jurisdiction to
grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected
to act as recovery agents for realization of
dues of the complainant from the accused,
the
High
Court
ought
to
have
independently apply its mind and arrive a a
conclusion as to whether a case for grant
of bail had been made out or not on settled
parameters,
irrespective
of
whatever
submission had been advanced on behalf of
the appellants."

18. In the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the
case in its entirety specifically the delay in
lodging the FIR that too as a counter blast to
the FIR lodged by the applicant against the
relatives of the informant and further that
though there is criminal history but in none of
the those cases the applicant has been
convicted so far and out of 34 cases 11 cases
are under section 138 of the N.I. Act, which
arise out of civil transaction between the
parties and cannot be said to be a criminal
case in strict sense.

19. For the aforesaid reasons and in
view of the judgements of the Apex Court in
the cases of R.D. Upadhyay (supra), Rabi
Prakash (supra), Dataram (supra), and U.N.
Gupta (supra), and without commenting upon
the merits of the case, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the applicant herein is
entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly
the bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant Rajnikant Shukla
involved in Case Crime No. 292 of 2022
under sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120-B IPC police station George Town,
Prayagraj be released on bail on his executing
a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned
subject
to
the
following
conditions:

(i) The applicant will not tamper
with the evidence during trial.

(ii).
The
applicant
will
not
pressurize/intimidate
the
prosecution
witnesses.

(iii). The applicant will appear
before the trial court on the each and every
date fixed, unless personal presence is
exempted.

(iv). The applicant will not try to
contact, threat or otherwise influence the
complainant or any of the witness of the
case.
5 All. Committee Of Management, Jami Masjid Sambhal Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal Vs. Hari
 Shankar Jain & Ors.
1673

21. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, the court concerned shall
be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant,
in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1673
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Civil Revision No. 4 of 2025

Committee Of Management, Jami Masjid
Sambhal Ahmed Marg Kot Sambhal
 ...Revisionist
Versus
Hari Shankar Jain & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Syed Ahmed Faizan, Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, Sri
Zaheer Asghar

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Singh,
Sri Prabhash Pandey .

Civil Law- The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Sections-115 & 80(2) - Order XXVI
Rule 9--- Revision filed under Section 115
against orders for grant of leave to institute the
suit before expiry of period of notice under
Section 80 (2) CPC, and the order for
appointment
of
Commission
for
local
investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 and 10
CPC--- Revisionist being a private individual
cannot object for want of notice under Section
80 which is for the benefit of Government and
its officers--- The order was strictly passed in
consonance with the provisions of Rule 9 of
Order XXVI CPC read with Rule 68 and 69 of the
General Rules Civil, as the court
while
appointing an Advocate Commissioner had
directed for the survey to be made with the help
of police force and necessary photography and
videography was to be carried out of the site to
be inspected and surveyed--- Present suit is not
prima facie barred by provisions of The Place of
Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, in fact, it
has been filed seeking right to access to
property in dispute under Section 18 of The
Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and
Remains
Act,
1958
being
a
protected
monument.

Revision dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. Mohd. Siddiq Vs Mahant Suresh Das, 2020
(1) SCC 1

2. Gopal Singh Visharad Vs Zahoor Ahmad, 2010
SCC OnLine (ALL) Page 1927

3. Civil Appeal No. 16899 of 1996, Karnataka
Board of Waqf Vs Government of India & ors.

4. Raghunath Das Vs Union of India, AIR 1969
SC 674.

5. Ghanshyam Dass Vs Dominion of India,
(1984) 3 SCC 46,

6. Bihari Chowdhary & anr.Vs St. of Bihar & ors.,
(1984) 2 SCC 627

7. St. of A.P. Vs Pioneer Builders, (2006) 12 SCC
119

8. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd. Vs
Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd., (2007) 9 SCC 43

9. Smt. Janak Raji Devi Vs Chandrabati Devi,
AIR 2002 Cal 11

10. T.VS Parangodan Vs District Collector,
Trichur & ors., AIR 1989 Ker 276

11. Himachal Steel Rerollers and Fabricators Vs
U.O.I.& ors., AIR 1988 All 191

12. St. of U.P. Vs Jaman Singh & anr., AIR 2007
UTT 10

13. K.K. Sharma Vs Punj. State, AIR 1989 P&H 7

14. St. of Karnataka Vs M. Muniraju, AIR 2002
Kar 287