Pradeep Singh @ Lakhvindar Singh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53230 of 2023 Applicant :- Pradeep Singh @ Lakhvindar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 236 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was subsequently named in the second statement of the informant. The said statement is an afterthought. The applicant is neither vendor, vendee nor marginal witness of the alleged sale-deed. No amount has been credited in the account of the applicant. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Vijnesh Yadav has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50405 of 2023, Vijnesh Yadav v. State of U.P., vide order dated 24.11.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-18 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 05.08.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was subsequently named in the second statement of the informant. The applicant is neither vendor, vendee nor marginal witness of the alleged sale-deed. No amount has been credited in the account of the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Vijnesh Yadav has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Pradeep Singh @ Lakhvindar Singh, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.12.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad