Allahabad High Court

DEEPAK SAINIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 12 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

When a non‑bailable offence trial exceeds 60 days from the first date of evidence and the accused has been in custody throughout, bail must be granted unless the magistrate records specific reasons to the contrary.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Deepak Saini, who was in custody for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The applicant argued that the trial had not concluded within 60 days of the first date fixed for taking evidence, invoking Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. and the corresponding Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The State opposed bail, citing evidence of money credited to the applicant’s bank account, but did not dispute the statutory entitlement to bail after the 60‑day period. Relying on the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Subhal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting the lack of any factor indicating risk of evidence tampering or delay caused by the accused. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C./480(6) BNSS when the trial exceeds 60 days from the first date of evidence.
Whether the presence of incriminating financial evidence defeats the statutory right to bail.
Whether the accused caused any delay in the trial that would justify denial of bail.
Whether there is a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 480(6), 483
Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 437(6)
Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
Section 437(6)
non‑bailable offence
right to liberty
trial delay
BNSS
evidence tampering
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1792 of 2025

Deepak Saini
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Srivastav, Jitendra Singh,
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Ravi Kumar
Shukla, Sonam Singh, Sunil Kumar,
Vikash Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan
Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Deepak Saini
, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2024, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Echora
Kamboh , District Sambhal during the pendency of the trial before the Court
below.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and
is languishing in jail since 20.11.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that charge sheet in this case has already been filed 12.2.2025 and
on 28.5.2025 charges against the applicant was framed and the case was
ordered to be fixed for prosecution evidence for 11.6.2025. Learned counsel
for the applicant submits that till date not a single witness has came
forward in support of the prosecution case. Learned counsel has invited
the attention of the court to Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. corresponding Section
480(6) of the BNSS to submit that where a case is triable by magistrate
and the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not
concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking
BAIL No. 1792 of 2025
2

evidence in the case, such person is liable to be admitted to bail if he has
been in custody during the whole of the said period, unless for reasons to
be recorded in writing the Magistrate otherwise directs. It is thus argued
that in the case at hand since the trial has not been concluded within 60
days from the first date fixed for taking evidence as is borne out from the
order sheet the applicant stands entitled to the benefit of Section 437(6)
Cr.P.C./480(6) BNSS and is liable to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by
submitting that the Investigating Officer during the investigation has
collected evidences against the applicant. The money has been credited in
the bank account of the applicant and as such the applicant is not entitled
to any indulgence by this Court. Learned AGA, however, could not
dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant stands entitled to the benefit of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C/480(6)
BNSS.

I, have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced. Section 437(6)
Cr.P.C./480(6) BNSS read as under:-

"437. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence. -
....................

(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of
any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days
from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall,
if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail,
to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs."

The provision of sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C./480 of BNSS can
certainly be said to have been inserted with an intention to speed up the
trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an under trial prisoner
for a prolonged time. The stage contemplated under this sub Section i.e.
437(6) is after filing of charge sheet and framing of charge when trial
commences and the accused prefers an application after lapse of 60 days
BAIL No. 1792 of 2025
3

from the first date fixed for taking evidence. The provision Section 437(6)
Cr.P.C. came to be interpreted by the Apex Court recently in the case of
Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 223 where their Lordships in Para 17 and 18 of the
judgment observed as under:-

"17. This Court is of a considered view that applications under Section
437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and
judicious exercise of discretion in favour of the accused by the Court
concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of
evidence e.g. where the case depends on documentary evidence Criminal
Appeal No.818/2025@SLP (Crl.) No.1314/2025 10 which is already
collected; where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of
delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by the accused;
where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the
period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to
the sentence prescribed for the offence for which he is tried. Normal
parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while
deciding application under Section 437(6) of the Code, but not with that
rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail.

18. Differently put, where there is absence of positive factors going
against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or
accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section
437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as
envisaged under the Constitution of India and sought to be Criminal
Appeal No.818/2025@SLP (Crl.) No.1314/2025 11 protected by insertion
of sub-section (6) to Section 437 of the Code by the legislature. "

Considering the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above
and taking note of the observations made therein, all the above facts and
circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the
case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-facie case, but
without commenting on merit of case the Court is of the opinion that, a
case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
BAIL No. 1792 of 2025
4

Let the accused-applicant, Deepak Saini, involved in above mentioned case
crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two
reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
April 13, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…