Allahabad High Court
SAMEENAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court held that the applicant, not being the arranger of the fake sureties and merely acting as a parivi for her son, is not liable for the fraud and is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sameea, who was accused under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 for alleged involvement in fake sureties filed on behalf of her son, Rashid. The applicant argued that she merely acted as a parivi (representative) for her son, did not arrange the fake sureties, and has no criminal record. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The Court found that there was no evidence that the applicant herself arranged the fraudulent sureties and, given her gender, the nature of the offences (triable by a magistrate), and her clean record, held that she could not be held responsible for the fraud. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the mother, acting as a parivi for her son, can be held liable for the filing of fake sureties arranged by her son.
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471.
- Whether the nature of the offences (triable by a magistrate) and the applicant’s lack of criminal history justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- fake sureties
- IPC 420
- IPC 467
- IPC 468
- IPC 471
- parivi
- magistrate trial
- criminal procedure
- mother
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4903 of 2026
Sameena
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Rai, Om Prakash Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned
AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 462 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station
Surajpur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court
below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and on the
basis of false allegation she has been made accused in the present matter.
4. He further submitted that actually applicant was mother of Rashid who was accused
in a case and was doing pairvi on his behalf and when he obtained bail then on his
behalf sureties were filed but subsequently son of the applicant absconded and it was
found that sureties filed on his behalf were fake.
5. He further submitted that for fake sureties applicant is not responsible and she was
only doing parivi on behalf of his son in the Court.
6. He further submitted that applicant never arranged the fake sureties for her son and
if after obtaining bail order his son managed fake sureties and thereafter absconded
then applicant being his mother cannot be responsible.
7. He further submitted that even applicant is lady and all the alleged offences are
triable by Magistrate and she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the
present matter since 1.12.2025 i.e. for last more than five months.
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
BAIL No. 4903 of 2026
2
10. However, as per allegation applicant was mother of one accused Rashid and she
was doing pairvi on his behalf and he after released on bail absconded and
subsequently it was found that his sureties were fake but from the record, it could not
be reflected that applicant was the person who arranged the alleged fake sureties for
her son. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant that if being mother of an accused applicant was doing pairvi on his behalf
and subsequently on his behalf fake sureties were filed and her son absconded after
released on bail then applicant cannot be held responsible atleast for filing of fake
sureties.
11. Further, applicant is lady and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and
she is having no criminal history and she is in jail in the present matter since
1.12.2025 i.e. for last more than five months.
12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in
my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicant-Sameena, 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 5, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…