Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

JANKI PAINTER AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court held that the applicants have made out a case for bail and allowed the bail application.

Summary

The applicants, Janki Painter and Ranjeet Singh, were charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. They applied for bail during the pendency of the trial, having missed a court appearance on 25‑05‑2026 which led to the issuance of a non‑bailable warrant and their subsequent detention. The applicants argued that they did not deliberately abscond and that their criminal history had been duly explained. The High Court, after considering the facts, the submissions of counsel, and the evidence, held that an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on the basis of past criminal antecedents and that the applicants had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to personal bond, two sureties per applicant, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite their criminal antecedents and failure to appear before the trial court.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal antecedents
  • non‑bailable warrant
  • Indian Penal Code
  • high court
  • surety
  • trial pendency

Judgment

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30532 of 2026

Janki Painter And Another
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :    Ramesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :    G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 57 out of 185)

                          HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri R.M.
Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicants seek bail in S.S.T. No. 21 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148,
392, 341, 427, 353, 295A, 283, 296, 298, 435, 183 IPC and Section 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 Prevention of Damages to
Public Property Act, Police Station Mahroni, District Lalitpur, during the
pendency of trial.

4. The criminal history assigned to the applicants has been explained.

5. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out,
an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the
applicants has been properly explained.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that applicants could not attend the Court on 25.5.2026
and N.B.W. was issued against them; the fact that the applicants filed a
warrant cancellation application on 14.7.2026 but the applicants were sent to
jail by the trial court; the submission that the applicants did not deliberately
                                                                                               BAIL No. 30532 of 2026
                                                                      2


                                    abscond from the eyes of law, and without expressing any opinion on the
                                    merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicants
                                    have made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

                                    7. Let the applicant- Janki Painter and Ranjeet Singh, who are involved
                                    in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal
                                    bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
                                    concerned subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that they
                                    shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear
                                    before the trial court as required.

                                    8. Breach of any of the above condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
                                    observation herein shall not affect the trial on merits.



                                                                                               (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Shalini




Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.