Allahabad High Court

SHUBHAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court granted bail, holding that the accused is entitled to relief under Section 437(6) CrPC/Section 480(6) BNSS.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shubham, accused under IPC Section 409 for alleged fraud of Rs. 9,53,714. The applicant argued innocence, lack of evidence, and that he had been in custody for over 60 days since the trial commenced, invoking Section 437(6) of the CrPC (referred to as Section 480(6) BNSS). The State opposed bail, citing recovered incriminating material and bank details linking the applicant to the crime. The Court examined the statutory provision, emphasizing its purpose to prevent prolonged pre‑trial detention, and applied the Supreme Court’s liberal approach in Subhalal @ Sushil Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh. Finding no positive factors against the applicant and noting the trial delay, the Court held that bail was warranted, subject to standard conditions. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the applicant was released on personal bond with sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the accused is entitled to bail under Section 437(6) CrPC/Section 480(6) BNSS when the trial is not concluded within 60 days.
Whether the presence of incriminating material and alleged involvement in the offence preclude bail.
How the Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation of Section 437(6) influences the discretion of the trial court.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 480(6)
Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 437(6)
Indian Penal Code — s. 409

Subjects

bail
Section 437(6)
non‑bailable offence
trial delay
liberal approach
evidence tampering
IPC Section 409
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5817 of 2025

Shubham
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Ashutosh Singh,
Narendra Singh, Neetu, Sandeep
Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rakesh Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rakesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the first informant and Shri Bijendra Kumar,
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. 192 of 2024, under Sections
409 of IPC, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very
case crime number for ulterior motive. The FIR which has been lodged
against the applicant with the allegation that the applicant has committed
fraud to extent of Rs. 9,53,714/-. The complicity of the applicant in the
commission of the crime has not been established and the applicant is not the
beneficiary of a single penny 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
applicant is in custody since 29.12.2024. The charge sheet has already been
submitted on 29.12.2024 and the court concerned has also taken cognizance
of the same on 24.02.2025. The charges against the applicant were framed
on 06.05.2025 and thereafter the case is being fixed for prosecution evidence
but till date not a single witness has came forward in support of the
BAIL No. 5817 of 2025
2

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 480(6) BNSS and is liable to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by
submitting that the Investigating Officer during the investigation has
collected bank details and mobile number of the application and the name of
the applicant has surfaced. Further recoveries of incriminating materials
have been made from the possession of the applicant and as such the
applicant is not entitled to any indulgence by this Court. Learned AGA,
however, could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant stands entitled to the benefit of Section 480(6)
BNSS.

I, have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my anxious
consideration to the submissions advanced. Section 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 480 of BNSS can certainly be
BAIL No. 5817 of 2025
3

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. 5817 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, Shubham, 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.)
May 12, 2026
Vibha Singh

Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…