Allahabad High Court
PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
Bail was granted to the accused without touching the merits of the case.
Summary
The accused Praveen Kumar Singh applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 58 of 2012) pending trial for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. He alleged false implication, that no arrest had been made earlier, and that the complainant withdrew the complaint after the victim married. He surrendered on 7 July 2026 after learning of a proclamation against him and has no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail but did not dispute these factual allegations. The Court, after considering the withdrawal letter and the surrounding circumstances, granted bail without addressing the merits, ordering a personal bond and two sureties, and citing the Supreme Court’s recent bail guidelines.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a pending trial for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC given the alleged false implication and withdrawal of the complaint
- Whether the withdrawal of the complainant’s letter and the absence of prior arrest justify bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 363, 366
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- withdrawal of complaint
- IPC 363
- IPC 366
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court bail jurisprudence
- Uttar Pradesh
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30313 of 2026
Praveen Kumar Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Mani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the accused-applicant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the accused-applicant
Praveen Kumar Singh to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 58 of
2012, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S.- Vindhyachal, District-
Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused-applicant that the
accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. lodged in the
year 2012 by the informant with the allegation that accused-applicant has
enticed his daughter in the year 2011. Further submits that during
investigation, the accused-applicant has not been arrested. It is thereafter
that the charge sheet is submitted. The accused-applicant was not aware
about the pendency of the case. The summons and warrants have not been
served on him. The applicant himself surrendered on 07.07.2026, when he
came to know about the proclamation issued against him. Further submits
that the victim has married somewhere else and the informant had given a
letter on 15.07.2026 to the police station that he does not want to continue
with the case. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in
jail since 07.07.2026 and hence, the applicant seeks to be released on
bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
BAIL No. 30313 of 2026
2
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considered the complicity of the accused-applicant and the letter,
which is at page no.44 of the affidavit.
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 8, 2026
Shivangi
Digitally signed by :-
SHIVANGI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…