Allowed

Madan Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2018BAIL/7177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the court considered the applicant's plea of false implication and lack of recovery from his possession. Balancing the severity of punishment against prima facie satisfaction of the charge, the court ordered bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including attendance in court and non-tampering with witnesses.

Madan Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7177 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Madan Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hans Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Hans Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Singh Parihar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of statement of co-accused Rampal Gupta, while the applicant was languishing in jail in other criminal cases. The said fact has been mentioned in para 9 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.05.2017. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Madan Rajpoot involved in Case Crime No. 0421 of 2017, under Section 411/413 I.P.C., Police Station Rath, District

¶10

Hamirpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶14

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Arti Sharma

Madan Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karunesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Karunesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Bushra Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Aalok Singh @ Rishu Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Vaishya Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Parmar Vs State of U.P.