1. Accused charged under Section 409 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeking bail after rejection by the High Court. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1531
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA AND MANMOHAN, JJ.
Arun Kumar Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2531 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15866 of 2024]
Decided on : 08-05-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tungesh, Advocate, Dr. Shipra Tripathi, Advocate, Ms. Gayatri Singh, Advocate, Ms. Mahak Sahu, Advocate, Ms. Saloni Mahawar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Beenu Sharma, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Tungesh, Advocate, Dr. Shipra Tripathi, Advocate, Ms. Gayatri Singh, Advocate, Ms. Mahak Sahu, Advocate, Ms. Saloni Mahawar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Advocate, Mr. Beenu Sharma, Advocate
The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, considering the delay in framing charges after the charge-sheet was filed, the fact that a co-accused had been granted bail, and the filing of a closure report regarding the appellant's criminal antecedents.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 409 read with Section 120-B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(2) - Criminal appeal regarding rejection of bail - Appellant has been in custody since 16.09.2023; charges yet to be framed despite a closure report against co-accused - Court determines that conditions for bail are met, setting aside the High Court's order. (Paras 3, 4, 10)
(B) Bail - Principles regarding grant of bail - The court considers the accused's ongoing custody, the absence of framed charges, and previous reports before concluding that bail should be granted, affirming that decisions made in this context do not reflect on the merits of the case. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused in an FIR registered for offenses punishable under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code. He has been in custody for an extended period, while co-accused has been granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The grant of bail is appropriate given the status of proceedings, and the appellant must comply with conditions set by the trial court.
Issues: The core issues addressed were the justification for granting bail considering the lack of framed charges and reassessment of custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail hinged on the assessment of the accused’s continued custody without charges being framed and observing fair treatment of co-accused.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is granted bail.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks bail based on the release of a co-accused and the filing of a closure report regarding criminal antecedents. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court noted the filing of the charge-sheet, the pending framing of charges, the release of a co-accused, and the closure report on antecedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Bail may be granted when the charge-sheet is filed, charges are not yet framed, a co-accused is on bail, and there are no criminal antecedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and appellant granted bail subject to trial court conditions. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 )
6. What factors did the court consider when deciding to grant bail to the appellant?
The court considered that the charge-sheet had been filed, charges were yet to be framed, a co-accused had already been granted bail, and a closure report had been filed regarding the appellant's criminal antecedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
7. Does the grant of bail by the court constitute a finding on the merits of the criminal case?
No, the court clarified that the observations made in the order and the grant of bail shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. (Para 11 )
8. Under what circumstances can the trial court cancel the bail granted by the appellate court?
The trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail if the appellant fails to appear on any fixed date without justifiable cause or breaches any of the terms and conditions imposed. (Para 12 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by the impugned judgment and order dated 28th August, 2024 has rejected the appellant's prayer for bail.
3. The appellant, figuring as an accused in FIR No. 0005 dated 6th January, 2021 registered with Police Station Khampur, Deoria, Uttar Pradesh, is in custody since 16.09.2023. It is alleged in the FIR that the appellant committed offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 409 read with 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
5. Although the police report (charge-sheet) has been filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 12th December, 2023, the charges are yet to be framed. The prosecution proposes to examine 18 (eighteen) witnesses to support its case.
6. It is stated in the counter affidavit that co-accused (Yuvraj Mishra) is on bail.
7. Insofar as criminal antecedents of the appellant is convened, it is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the police has filed a closure report.
8. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant may be admitted to an order for release on bail.
9. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
10. The appellant shall be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
11. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
12. The appellant shall, however, appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless exempted; and should the appellant fail to appear on any date without justifiable cause or breach any of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
13. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
