Allahabad High Court

MUKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the offences are bailable, he has been detained for more than five months, and the allegations do not outweigh his right to liberty.

Summary

Mukesh applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 773 of 2025) involving multiple IPC offences, including sections 229, 233, 237, 246, 318(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2). The prosecution alleged that Mukesh habitually took sureties for other accused and prepared fake documents, while also noting his prior bail in two similar cases. Counsel for the applicant argued that the alleged offences are bailable, Mukesh has been in custody for over five months, and the allegations lack substantive proof. The learned Additional Government Advocate could not refute the applicant's factual submissions. The court, after verifying that the police had accepted the sureties and considering the prolonged pre‑trial detention, concluded that Mukesh is entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted despite allegations of taking sureties for other accused and preparing fake documents
Whether the nature of the offences (triable by Magistrate) and the applicant's five‑month pre‑trial detention justify bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 229, 233, 237, 246, 318(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
surety
pre‑trial detention
magistrate trial
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4845 of 2026

Mukesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrita Kashyap, Rohit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Amrita Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ghanshyam
Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 773 of 2025, under Sections 229, 233, 237, 246, 318(2), 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2) BNS, Police Station Kasaya, District Kushinagar, during pendency of
the trial in the court below.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, as per allegation
applicant used to take sureties in different criminal cases for different accused and
thus, he is professional and there is also allegation that applicant also prepared fake
documents but entire allegations are totally false.

5. She further submitted that however apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of two other cases with similar allegations but in both the cases he is
on bail.

6. She further submitted that all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and
applicant is in jail in the present matter since 25.11.2025 i.e. for last more than five
months.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

9. However, as per allegation applicant used to take sureties on behalf of different
accused in different cases and he also used fake documents but considering the fact
that it appears after proper verification by the police sureties were accepted and the
fact that in two previous cases he is on bail and alleged offences are triable by
BAIL No. 4845 of 2026
2

Magistrate and he is in jail in the present matter for last more than five months, in my
view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant-Mukesh, 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 the court
concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his
personal presence is exempted.

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

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

12. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty
to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in
by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations
shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

May 7, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…