Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89539 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12349 of 2025 Applicant :- Mukesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Shankar Singh,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Jawahar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the named accused persons as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4056 of 2025. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 680 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B of IPC, Police Station - Bansgaon, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the statement of imposter Neetu Pandey, who is stated to have executed a forged sale-deed in favour of the named accused persons. The allegations are per se false as the applicant is neither the executor nor the marginal witness to the said sale-deed. 6. Learned counsel has further stated that during arguments in first bail application, the State had mentioned three criminal cases against the applicant, which are as follows:- (i) Case Crime No. 760 of 2017 under Section 147, 123, 342, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur. (ii) Case Crime No. 796 of 218 under Section 406, 419, 420, 427, 467, 468, 472, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Cantt., District- Gorakhpur. (iii) Case Crime No. 805 of 2018 under Section 406, 419, 420, 427, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Cantt., District,- Gorakhpur. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that in reality, the applicant has criminal history of four cases to his credit and he has explained all four cases assigned to him as in one case, he has been acquitted; in other two cases, closure report has been filed and in the fourth case, he has been bailed out, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail having explained his criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned counsel for the named accused persons has stated that the named accused persons are the real victims in the instant case as in reality, they have been duped. Earlier on, in the murder case, the land in question was transferred in favour of the wife of the deceased Sharda Devi and the brother of deceased person Gauri Shankar Chaurasiya. The instant effort of the applicant is nothing but to scuttle the said transfer of property in the name of the wife of the deceased. The applicant has misused his clout and produced the co-accused person Neetu Pandey as imposter instead of the informant Ranjana Singh, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 9. Per contra, learned AGA has also opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 10. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR, his name has come up later on and he has neither the marginal witness nor the executor of the said sale-deed coupled by the fact that the case is triable by Magistrate, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 12. Let the applicant- Mukesh Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 26.5.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad