Allahabad High Court
PUSHPENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
When a trial of a non‑bailable offence exceeds 60 days from the first date of evidence and the accused has been in custody throughout, the court must liberally grant bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. unless there are positive factors against the accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pushpendra Singh, who was in custody for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the IPC. The applicant claimed innocence and argued that the trial had not been concluded within 60 days of the first date fixed for taking evidence, invoking Section 437(6) of the Cr.P.C. (and the analogous provision 480(6) of the BNSS). The State opposed bail but did not dispute the applicant’s entitlement under the statutory provision. Referring to the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Subhalel @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that, absent any positive factor against the accused, bail must be granted to protect individual liberty. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑engagement in criminal activity, non‑intimidation of witnesses and regular appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C./480(6) BNSS after the trial exceeds 60 days.
- Whether the delay in trial is attributable to the accused or to other factors.
- Whether the nature of the offences and the evidence warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 480(6)
- Cr.P.C. — s. 437(6)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- Section 437(6)
- non‑bailable offence
- trial delay
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- presumption of innocence
- witness tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45458 of 2025
Pushpendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Digvijay Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, today in
the Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Shri Digvijay Singh and Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant, Shri Punit Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-Respondent
and perused the record.
The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant
seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2024, under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Mau Darwaza, District
Farrukhabad.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently contended
that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case crime number for ulterior motives. It is submitted that the
F.I.R. has been lodged against five named accused persons with the
allegation that the applicant, along with co-accused persons, fraudulently
executed a sale deed at Tehsil Sadar by impersonating certain persons in
place of the real owners, namely the Tau and Tai of the informant, who
had allegedly died about 35 years ago. The complicity of the applicant in
the commission of the crime has not been established and the applicant is not
the beneficiary of the said sale deed and has nothing to do with the offence
alleged. The applicant has no criminal antecedents except the present case.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
BAIL No. 45458 of 2025
2
applicant is in custody since 30.03.2025. The charge sheet has already been
submitted and the court concerned has also taken cognizance of the same.
The charges against the applicant were framed on 28.07.2025 and thereafter
the case is being fixed for prosecution evidence but 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 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 but 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
BAIL No. 45458 of 2025
3
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 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
BAIL No. 45458 of 2025
4
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. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant, Pushpendra Singh, 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 20, 2026
Vibha Singh
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…