Allahabad High Court
AJAY CHANDRA SETHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Summary
Ajay Chandra Seth, charged under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC for an offence alleged in a 2012 FIR, had been granted bail by the Sessions Court in 2014. The trial court cancelled his bail and issued a non‑bailable warrant because he failed to appear on three consecutive dates, although he was represented by counsel. He surrendered on 29 May 2025 and remained in custody, contending that the cancellation was unjustified and that the trial had dragged on for fourteen years. The High Court examined the submissions, noted that the accused had been appearing through counsel and that the ground for cancellation was “filthy”, and held that he was entitled to an enlargement of bail. The court ordered his release on a personal bond and two sureties, directing him to cooperate with the trial process.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be cancelled and a non‑bailable warrant issued solely on the ground of the accused's non‑appearance despite representation by counsel.
- Whether the accused is entitled to an enlargement of bail given the prolonged pendency of the trial and prior bail order.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- non‑appearance
- cancellation of bail
- IPC offences
- personal bond
- sureties
- Supreme Court bail policy
- prolonged trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24610 of 2025
Ajay Chandra Seth
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vinod Kr Pandey, G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for accused
applicant, Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant
and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Ajay Chandra Seth to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 67 of
2013, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, P.S.- Chaubepur,
District- Varanasi during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the
FIR is of the year 2012 wherein the accused applicant has been granted
bail by the court of Sessions in order dated 22.7.2014 and since then he is
appearing in the trial. On 22.10.2024, the trial court has passed an order
that the accused applicant is not appearing before the trial court on three
successive dates and therefore, has not complied with the direction made
in the bail application pertaining to his appearing before the trial court on
each and every date. It is further contended that because of his non-
availability at the trial court the accused was not at fault as his counsel is
appearing before the court but despite that the bail of the accused
applicant was cancelled and the non-bailable warrant was issued against
him. On 29.5.2025, the accused applicant has surrendered himself before
the trial court and since then, he is in jail. It is further contended that
despite elapse of fourteen long years, the trial is still continuing and
the accused applicant has been put to jail merely because he did not
BAIL No. 24610 of 2025
2
appear on three dates. The trial is still continuing. The applicant has one
case criminal history, which could not be explained in the circumstances
as the accused applicant was not knowing the same. He seeks enlargement
of accused on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed
the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that the accused applicant was already on bail by the
Sessions Court and non-bailable warrant has been issued against the
accused applicant on some filthy ground that the accused applicant is not
appearing and he is not co-operating in the trial of the case despite the fact
that the accused was appearing through counsel to facilitate trial, the
accused applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant 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 court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 30, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…