Allahabad High Court

ROHIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as he is merely a witness, has no prior criminal history, and the offences are bailable.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Rohit Kumar, who is charged under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged fraud and forgery related to a sale deed. The applicant contended that he was only a witness to the deed and had no prior criminal record, having been in custody for seven months. The prosecution argued that he was involved in the fraud but could not dispute that he was merely a witness and also had no previous convictions. After reviewing the record, the court noted that the offences are bailable and the applicant’s role appeared limited to that of a witness. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant, charged under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial
Whether the applicant's role as a witness precludes him from being considered an accused in the alleged fraud
Whether the absence of prior criminal record and the bailability of the offences justify granting bail

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
Section 420
Section 467
Section 468
Section 471
fraud
forgery
sale deed
witness
magistrate jurisdiction
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5379 of 2026

Rohit Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Puneet Bhadauria
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kaushlendra Singh, Rashmi
Singh

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

1. Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Kaushlendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam
Mishra, learned brief holder for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.570 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Chhibramau, District Kannauj,
during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per allegation, applicant
along with other co-accused duped the informant as he is one of the
witnesses in the alleged forged sale deed executed in favour of co-accused
Manjit Singh Shakya.

4. He next submits, merely because applicant was one of the witness of
alleged sale deed, it can not be said that he also involved in the alleged
fraud and cheating.

5. He next submits, applicant is not having any previous criminal history
and in the present matter he is in jail since 4.9.2025 i.e. for last seven
months.

6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submit, applicant also involved in the
present matter along with co-accused Manjit Singh Shakya but they could
BAIL No. 5379 of 2026
2

not dispute the fact that Manjit Singh Shakya appears to be prime accused
and applicant is only one of the witness in the alleged forged sale deed
which was executed in favour of the Manjit Singh Shakya.

7. They further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any
previous criminal history and all the alleged offences are triable by
Magistrate and in the present matter applicant is in jail for last seven
months.

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

9. However, as per allegation, applicant and other co-accused by playing
fraud got executed sale deed of the informant but it reflects, sale deed was
executed in favour of the co-accused Manjit Singh Shakya and applicant
was only one of the witness in the alleged sale deed.

10. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and all
the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in the present matter
applicant is in jail for last seven months.

11. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

13. Let the applicant -Rohit Kumar 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.
BAIL No. 5379 of 2026
3

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

14. 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.

15. 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 5, 2026
S.A.

Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…