Intezam vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Lal Mani Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 404 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and others in the year 2014 and according to the FIR, applicant on the basis of will executed by one Hamid who was brother of his maternal grandfather, obtained the property in question and thereafter, he executed a sale deed of the property and the alleged will deed was forged but the entire allegations levelled against him are totally false.

4. He further submitted that when in the year 2014, during investigation, applicant challenged the FIR of the present case in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15732 of 2014 then on 9.9.2014 Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicant till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

5. He further submitted that however, charge sheet has been filed in 2014 but after that applicant moved to Delhi and started living in Delhi and therefore, he could not appear before the Court concerned and on 26.02.2026 he was arrested.

6. He further submitted that applicant was not an absconder and he did not intentionally avoid the court proceedings and as for his livelihood he shifted to Delhi, therefore, he could not appear before the Court concerned.

7. He further submitted that applicant is now ready to give an undertaking that if he is released on bail, then he will regularly attend the trial court on each and every date either through his counsel or in person.

8. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant has no other previous criminal history.

9. He further submitted that therefore, considering the above facts, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that during investigation, arrest of the applicant was stayed by the Division Bench of this Court.

11. They however further submitted that applicant could only be arrested after twelve years, therefore, prima facie, he appears to be absconder.

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

13. However, it reflects that applicant could only be arrested after twelve years but the reason for his non-appearance disclosed by him in the instant bail application, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

14. Further, record also suggests that during investigation, Division Bench of this Court, after considering entire facts of the case was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicant.

15. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and learned counsel for the applicant assured that he will regularly attend the trial court on each and every date, either in person or through his counsel. 16. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

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

18. Let the applicant-Intezam, 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Considering the fact that the instant matter is of the year 2014, trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings of the case and shall make all endeavour to conclude the same within six months without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

22. Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the concerned District Judge within 72 hours for necessary compliance.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

May 6, 2026

Ankita