Allahabad High Court
INTEZAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The applicant, Intezam, sought bail in a 2014 case involving alleged forgery and fraud under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B. He claimed the FIR was false, that a stay of his arrest was granted in 2014, and that his relocation to Delhi prevented his appearance, not an intention to abscond. The State argued that the twelve‑year delay in his arrest made him a prima facie absconder. The Court noted the earlier stay, the applicant’s clean criminal record, and his willingness to give an undertaking to appear, and held that these factors outweighed the absconding concern. Consequently, the bail application was allowed with conditions, without commenting on the merits of the underlying offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is a prima facie absconder justifying denial of bail.
- Whether the twelve‑year delay in arrest defeats the grant of bail.
- Whether the earlier stay of arrest and the applicant’s clean record warrant bail.
- Whether the applicant’s undertaking to appear suffices for bail under the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- absconding
- forgery
- property dispute
- IPC sections 420,467,468,471,120B
- CrPC section 173(2)
- stay of arrest
- trial expedite
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14395 of 2026
Intezam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Syed Ali Imam
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Lal Mani Singh
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Lal Mani Singh,
learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for
the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 404 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police
Station Kithore, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged
against the applicant and others in the year 2014 and according to the FIR, applicant
on the basis of will executed by one Hamid who was brother of his maternal
grandfather, obtained the property in question and thereafter, he executed a sale deed
of the property and the alleged will deed was forged but the entire allegations levelled
against him are totally false.
4. He further submitted that when in the year 2014, during investigation, applicant
challenged the FIR of the present case in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15732 of
2014 then on 9.9.2014 Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the arrest of
the applicant till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.
5. He further submitted that however, charge sheet has been filed in 2014 but after that
applicant moved to Delhi and started living in Delhi and therefore, he could not appear
before the Court concerned and on 26.02.2026 he was arrested.
6. He further submitted that applicant was not an absconder and he did not
intentionally avoid the court proceedings and as for his livelihood he shifted to Delhi,
therefore, he could not appear before the Court concerned.
7. He further submitted that applicant is now ready to give an undertaking that if he is
released on bail, then he will regularly attend the trial court on each and every date
either through his counsel or in person.
BAIL No. 14395 of 2026
2
8. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant has no other
previous criminal history.
9. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be
enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the
prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that during investigation, arrest of the
applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court.
11. They however further submitted that applicant could only be arrested after twelve
years, therefore, prima facie, he appears to be absconder.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
13. However, it reflects that applicant could only be arrested after twelve years but the
reason for his non-appearance disclosed by him in the instant bail application, cannot
be completely ruled out at this stage.
14. Further, record also suggests that during investigation, Division Bench of this
Court, after considering entire facts of the case was pleased to stay the arrest of the
applicant.
15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and learned counsel for the
applicant assured that he will regularly attend the trial court on each and every date,
either in person or through his counsel.
16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in
my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.
18. Let the applicant-Intezam, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on 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 appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his
personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty
BAIL No. 14395 of 2026
3
to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in
by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations
shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
21. Considering the fact that the instant matter is of the year 2014, trial court is
directed to expedite the proceedings of the case and shall make all endeavour to
conclude the same within six months without granting unnecessary adjournment to
either of the parties, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.
22. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the
concerned District Judge within 72 hours for necessary compliance.
May 6, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…