Allahabad High Court
SHISHUPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to demonstrate any risk of tampering, intimidation, or delay, and the FIR was lodged belatedly with no corroborative link to the offences.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code for Shishupal Singh, who was charged under IPC sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) in a land‑fraud case. The applicant argued that he was merely the purchaser of the land, had paid full consideration, and was a victim of fraud, emphasizing the belated filing of the FIR and lack of any corroborative evidence linking him to the offences. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged late, the applicant had been in custody for ten months, and there was no material showing a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 CrPC despite being charged with serious IPC offences.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of corroborative evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or cause trial delay if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 483 CrPC
- IPC offences
- land fraud
- delay in FIR
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1370 of 2026
Shishupal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed
with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 290 of
2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) BNS, Police
Station Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant is the purchaser of the
alleged land by means of a sale deed dated 03.07.2024. The stamp duty as
well as sale consideration was duly paid. The applicant himself is victim
of the fraud. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report is
fatal to the prosecution case. The case of the applicant is distinguishable
from that of other co-accused. The criminal history of the applicant has
been explained in paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. The
applicant is in jail since 08.06.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he
will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. The applicant is purchaser of the alleged land by means of a
BAIL No. 1370 of 2026
2
sale deed dated 03.07.2024. The sale deed records that the sale
consideration was duly paid. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has
remained confined for almost ten months and after submission of the
charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when
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, without commenting on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Shishupal 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 the 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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 28, 2026
gp
Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…