# Teekam v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 31
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41370 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/teekam-v-state-of-u-p-52842
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

12 All. Teekam Vs. State of U.P.
31
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.

16. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

17. Identity, status and residence proof
of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are
accepted.

18. The applicant shall be released
on the basis of downloaded copy of this
order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad and verified by the
concerned counsel with the undertaking
that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.

19. It is further directed that the trial
court shall send the release order to the
concerned
jail
through
Bail
Order
Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.

20. Office is directed to send a copy of
this
order
to
the
applicant
through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or
e-prison portal in compliance of the order
of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021
decided on 31.01.2023; eported in (2024)
10 SCC 685.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41370 of
2025

Teekam ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether after rejection of bail by Sessions Court
on the basis of material available in the case
diary, the High Court can entertain the bail
application on the basis of material collected
during trial though the same was not available
before the Sessions Court at the time of
rejection of bail application as well as the
question whether the second bail application is
maintainable on the basis of evidence collected
during trial though at the time of rejection of
first bail application by the Sessions Court as
well as High Court that material was not
available

Head Notes
The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section 483- Successive bail
applications can be filed on the basis of
new material even though that material is
collected during trial and the same was
not available before Sessions Court or the
High Court at the time of rejection of
earlier bail application(s)- Bail application
allowed.(E-15)

Held- That second bail application or successive
bail applications may be entertained by the High
Court on the basis of material collected during
trial even though such material was not
available before the Sessions Court or High
Court
while
considering
the
earlier
bail
application but in appropriate case High Court
may direct the applicant to file successive bail
application before the Sessions Court on the
basis of new material.
(Para 7 & 11)

Case Law Cited
Kamal @ Kamal Choudhary vs The State of
Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.992 of
2025 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.808 of
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2025); Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan
@ Pappu Yadav and another reported in 2004
(7) SCC 528; Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau
of Investigation in SLP No.16953 of 2025
decided on 11.12.2025

List of Acts
The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section 483-

List of Keywords
Successive bail applications; May be entertained
by the High Court; On the basis of material
collected during trial; Even though such material
was not available before the Sessions Court or
High Court while considering the earlier bail
application

Case Arising From
Bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail during the trial in
Case Crime No. 62 of 2025, under Sections
115(2), 118(1), 109, 110, 352, 351(2) BNS,
Police Station- Mandawar, District Bijnor.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar and Sri N.I.
Jafri, learned Amicus Curiae for the
applicant, Sri Himanshu Kumar, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

2.
This
matter
was
heard
on
08.12.2025 and 15.12.2025. Matter was
argued on the point, "whether after
rejection of bail by Sessions Court on the
basis of material available in the case diary,
the High Court can entertain the bail
application on the basis of material
collected during trial though the same was
not available before the Sessions Court at
the time of rejection of bail application as
well as the question whether the second
bail application is maintainable on the basis
of evidence collected during trial though at
the time of rejection of first bail application
by the Sessions Court as well as High
Court that material was not available".

3. Learned counsel for the applicant as
well as amicus curiae, learned Senior
Counsel, Sri N.I. Jafari submitted that the
power of High Court under Section 439
Cr.P.C./483 BNSS and Sessions Court is
concurrent. The High Court can entertain
the bail application on any ground even
though same was not available before the
Sessions Court at the time of rejecting the
bail application of the accused.

4. In support of his contention, counsel
for the applicant has relied upon the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Kamal @ Kamal Choudhary vs The
State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal
Appeal No.992 of 2025 (arising out of
S.L.P. (Criminal) No.808 of 2025),
wherein the Apex Court observed that even
after rejection of the first bail application
by the High Court, if subsequent material is
collected during trial then accused need not
to file second bail application before the
Sessions Court. It can consider second bail
application on the basis of new material
collected during trial. To decide the issue, it
would be appropriate to quote Section 439
Cr.P.C./483 BNSS, which is as follows;

439. Special powers of High
Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may
direct:-

(a) that any person accused of an
offence and in custody, be released on bail,
and if the offence is of the nature specified
in sub-section (3) of Section 437, may
impose any condition which it considers
12 All. Teekam Vs. State of U.P.
33
necessary for the purposes mentioned in
that sub-section;

(b) that any condition imposed by
a Magistrate when releasing any person on
bail be set aside or modified :

Provided that the High Court or
the Court of Session shall, before granting
bail to a person who is accused of an
offence which is triable exclusively by the
Court of Session or which, though not so
triable, is punishable with imprisonment
for life, give notice of the application for
bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, of
opinion that it is not practicable to give
such notice.

[Provided further that the High
Court or the Court of Session shall, before
granting bail to a person who is accused
of an offence triable under sub-section
(3) of section 376 or section 376AB or
section 376DA or section 376DB of the
Indian Penal Code, give notice of the
application for bail to the Public
Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days
from the date of receipt of the notice of
such application.]

(1A)
The
presence
of
the
informant or any person authorised by him
shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of
the application for bail to the person under
sub-section (3) of section 376 or section
376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB
of the Indian Penal Code.] [Inserted by
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (22
of 2018), dated 11.8.2018.]

(2) A High Court or Court of
Session may direct that any person who has
been released on bail under this Chapter be
arrested and commit him to custody.

5. From perusal of Section 439
Cr.P.C., it is clear that the High Court as
well as Sessions Court have special power
to release a person. In this Section, it is not
mentioned that before approaching the
High Court, a person must approach the
Sessions Court. This issue was also
considered by the Apex Court in the case of
Kamal @ Kamal Choudhary (supra) and
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another
reported in 2004 (7) SCC 528, wherein the
Apex Court observed that successive bail
application
on
the
new
material
is
maintainable before the High Court but
subsequent
new
material
must
be
substantially different. For ready reference,
para
6
of
the
Kamal
@
Kamal
Choudhary (supra) is quoted as follows;

"6. We fail to understand the
reasoning adopted by the High Court. Even
if an earlier bail application is rejected, an
accused can make a fresh application at a
subsequent stage on the ground of material
change in circumstances. Therefore, it was
the duty of the High Court to consider the
bail application on merits. However, that
has not been done. After the first bail
application was rejected, now all the eye
witnesses have been examined. This was a
major change in circumstance brought
about after the dismissal of the first
application for bail by the Sessions Court.
Considering this fact and considering the
long
duration
of
incarceration,
the
appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail
pending the trial."

6. From above analysis, it is clear that
the High Court can entertain the first bail
application directly or successive bail
application on the basis of new material
though same was not available before the
Sessions Court but Chapter XVIII, Rule 18
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Allahabad High Court Rules
provides
that
while
filing
the
bail
application in the High Court, it must be
annexed the copy of bail rejection order
passed by the Sessions Court, but this
restriction
applies
for
the
first
bail
application filed after rejection of bail
application by the sessions court. For ready
reference, Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules is quoted as
under:

"18. Application for bail other
than anticipatory bail :- (1) No application
for bail shall be entertained unless
accompanied by a copy of judgment or
order appealed against or sought to be
revised and a copy of order passed by the
Sessions Judge on the bail application for
the applicant and unless the accused has
surrendered except where he has been
release on bail after conviction under
Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.

Explanation :- the copy of the
order refusing bail passed by the Sessions
Judge shall either be a certified copy or the
copy furnished by the Sessions Judge free
of charge to the accused.

(2) Every application for bail in a
case which is under investigation or which
is pending in a lower Court shall state
whether application for bail had or had not
been
previously
made
before
the
Magistrate
and
the
Sessions
Judge
concerned
and
the
results
of
such
applications, if any.

(3)
Save
in
exceptional
circumstances-

(a) No bail application shall be
placed before the Court unless notice
thereof has been given to the Government
Advocate and a period of two days has
elapsed from the date of such notice.

(b) If the application for bail has
not been moved within seven days after the
expiry of the aforesaid period of two days
the applicant or his Counsel shall give two
days previous notice to the Government
Advocate as to the exact date on which
such application is intended to be moved.

(c) Where the prayer for bail is
contained in a petition of appeal or
application for revision, notice thereof may
be given to the Government Advocate the
same day prior to the hearing of such
petition or application and the fact of such
previous notice having been given, shall be
endorsed on such petition or application.
Alongwith such notice a certified copy or
one attested to be true by the counsel, of
the Judgment appealed from or sought to
be revised shall also be given to the
Government Advocate.

(4) Every application for bail
shall show prominently in the first page
thereof the crime number, the police
station by which and the section or
sections and the Act or Rules under
which the applicant is being prosecuted
or has been convicted and whether such
application is the first, second or any
such subsequent application moved by
him before this Court, and shall be
accompanied by a copy of the first
information report. It shall also state the
following particulars, namely:-

(a) The date of the alleged
occurrence;

(b) The date of the applicant's
arrest.
12 All. Teekam Vs. State of U.P.
35

The Bench Secretary shall while
entertaining
a
bail
application
for
presentation to the court check every page
there of and shall affix a rubber stamp
containing his initials on every page of bail
application and all the annexures thereto
before putting it up before the court in
token of his having checked, every page of
the applications and he shall, thereafter,
make the following endorsement on the bail
application :

'Moved
before
Hon'ble
................................ J.

on................................... (date)'

Similarly the official whose duty
it is to receive the bail application from the
court after orders, shall affix a rubber
stamp containing his initials on the first
page of the bail application in token of his
having checked that all the pages of the
bail application bear the rubber stamp of
the Bench Secretary.

The rubber stamps containing the
initials of the Bench Secretary and the official
or officials authorised to receive the fresh
bail application from the Court shall be
supplied to the Bench Secretaries and the
officials by the Registrar of the Court.

The application shall not be
returned to the applicant or his counsel
after the above endorsement has been
made.

(5) Every page of the application
for bail and every page of the annexures
thereto shall bear the full signature of the
applicant or his counsel.

(6) In every such application
shall be stated the full particulars of the
previous application or applications, if any,
moved in this Court by same applicant in
respect of the same crime and the date or
dates on which such previous application
or applications had been rejected.

7. It is also clear from the above noted
judgements
that
successive
bail
applications can be filed on the basis of
new material even though that material is
collected during trial and the same was not
available before Sessions Court or the High
Court at the time of rejection of earlier bail
application(s).
In
view
of
above
established position, this Court is also of
the view that second bail application or
successive bail applications may be
entertained by the High Court on the
basis of material collected during trial
even though such material was not
available before the Sessions Court or
High Court while considering the earlier
bail application but in appropriate case
High Court may direct the applicant to
file successive bail application before the
Sessions Court on the basis of new
material.

8. Coming back to the present case,
the instant bail application has been filed
with a prayer to release the applicant on
bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 62
of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1),
109, 110, 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station-
Mandawar, District Bijnor.

9. Contention of learned counsel for
the applicant has submitted that though
during investigation the injured has made
allegation against the applicant and on
considering that material, Sessions Court
has rejected the bail application of the
applicant but during trial, injured Jeeshan
did not support the prosecution so far as the
allegation of causing injury on the part of
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the applicant is concerned and injured was
also declared hostile. Therefore, there is no
material against the applicant and on the
basis of material collected during trial he is
entitled to be released on bail. It is lastly
submitted that charge sheet has been filed
by the police, therefore, there is no
requirement for custodial interrogation. The
applicant has no criminal history and he is
languishing in jail since 11.04.2025. In
case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse
the liberty of bail and would cooperate in
the trial proceedings.

10. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail but could not dispute the
legal position even though the material
collected during trial was not available
before the Sessions Court at the time of
rejection of bail application and the same
can be considered at this stage.

11. Thus, considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and taking
into account the statement of injured before
the trial court, wherein he did not make any
allegation against the applicant for causing
injury to him and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
accused as well as considering the mandate
of the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central
Bureau of Investigation in SLP No.16953
of 2025 decided on 11.12.2025 and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

12.
Let
the
applicant-
Teekam
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 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.

ii. The applicant shall cooperate
in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.

iii.
The
applicant
shall
not
indulge
in
any
criminal
activity
or
commission of any crime after being
released on bail.

iv. The applicant shall attend in
accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.

13. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

14. Identity, status and residence proof
of the applicant and sureties be verified by
the court concerned before the bonds are
accepted.

15. It is made clear that the applicant
shall
be
released
on
the
basis
of
downloaded copy of this order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and verified by the concerned counsel with
the undertaking that the certified copy will
be filed within 15 days.

16. It is directed that the trial court
shall send the release order to the
concerned
jail
through
Bail
Order
12 All. District Deputy Election Officer/A.D.M., Finance And Revenue & Anr. Vs. Punjab Tent
 House & Anr.
37
Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.

17. Office is directed to send a copy of
this
order
to
the
applicant
through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or
e-prison portal in compliance of the order
of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo
Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021
decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024)
10 SCC 685.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 37
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Civil Revision No. 57 of 2025

District Deputy Election Officer/A.D.M,
Finance And Revenue & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
Punjab Tent House & Anr.
 ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether not arraying the State Election
Commission as defendant who is the person
who makes payment for the expenditure
incurred during the elections and due to which
the decree cannot be executed against the
revisionists i.e. the District Deputy Election
Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue), Lakhimpur Kheri and District
Magistrate/District Election Officer, Lakhimpur
Kheri.

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908- Section
47 & 115- Suit for recovery of amount for
the articles supplied during the Panchayat
Elections filed by the respondent decreed
against which against which First appeal
was filed which was dismissed by the High
Court
against
which
the
present
revisionists preferred an SLP before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also
dismissed- The reason has also been
assigned
for
non
inclusion
of
State
Election Commission as defendant or a
necessary party and those reasons are
that the tender was invited by the
respondent
no.
2
and
after
the
finalization, the agreement was executed
between
the
respondent
no.
1
and
revisionist no. 2 and there was no
agreement
with
the
State
Election
Commission- Executing court cannot go
behind the decree nor can it question its
legality or correctness and the only
exception is if the decree sought to be
executed is a nullity for lack of inherent
jurisdiction, which is not in the present
case- Revision dismissed.(E-15)

Held- The decree has already attained finality
up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now the
Executing court has no other option except to
pass an order for the execution of the decree
and the application under Section 47 of the
C.P.C. has rightly been rejected by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri.
(Para 13, 14, 15 & 16)

Case Law Cited
Sundar Dass vs. Ram Parkas reported in [AIR
1977 SUPREME COURT 1201]; Periyammal
(dead) By Lrs and Others vs. V. Rajamani and
Another Etc. reported in [AIR 2025 SC (Civil);
1244];

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

List of Keywords
Executing Court cannot go beyond decree; Nor
it questions its legality or correctness; Decree
attained finality; only exception ; lack of
inherent jurisdiction

Case Arising From
Order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri on the
application of the revisionist under Section 47 of
the C.P.C. filed in the execution proceedings.

Appearances for Parties