Allahabad High Court

DEEPAK SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.

Summary

Deepak Shukla, detained since 20 November 2023 in connection with a 2020 case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, filed a second bail application after an earlier denial. No charge had been framed and a request for a separate trial remained pending, prompting the counsel to invoke the Supreme Court’s decision in Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, emphasizing that prolonged pre‑trial incarceration violates Article 21. The State could not rebut the applicant’s claim that there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. After reviewing the record and finding no material indicating a danger of tampering, the Allahabad High Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and several conditions. The order also warned that breach of any condition would permit the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention without charge violates the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether there exists a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, justifying denial of bail.
Whether bail should be granted in a case triable by a Magistrate under the cited IPC sections.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

bail
undertrial detention
Article 21
Indian Penal Code
pre‑trial detention
Allahabad High Court
surety

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4474 of 2026

Deepak Shukla
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Shukla, Neelam Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material brought on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail
application moved on behalf of applicant. The first was rejected by this
Court vide 18.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
25601 of 2025. It has further been submitted that the offence is triable by
Magistrate. The applicant is in jail since 20.11.2023 and till date charge
has not been framed as yet. The applicant has also moved an application
dated 08.04.2026 before the learned trial court to try his case separately,
but nothing has been done. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that trial is progressing at a slow pace and has relied upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani
Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit
that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is
contended that there is no occasion now for the applicant to tamper with
any witness or to flee from judicial process. Several other submissions in
order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the
applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances
which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of
the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and
shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required
and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem
fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.11.2023.

3. Learned A.G.A. for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the
aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
BAIL No. 4474 of 2026
2

4. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this
case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing
material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this
Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

5. Let the applicant-Deepak Shukla, involved in Case Crime No. 489 of
2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station
Nawabad, District Jhansi, be enlarged on bail, on executing a personal
bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of
which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.

6. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above,
the prosecution shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for
cancellation of bail.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 8, 2026
Mustaqeem.

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…