Arun Kumar Srivastava vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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

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.

Table of Content
1. appellant's bail application rejected. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments regarding pending charges and evidence. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court considers co-accused's bail status. (Para 6 , 8)
4. court grants bail with conditions. (Para 9 , 10)
5. clarification on bail implications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document