Allowed

Shailendra Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 May 2019BAIL/20077/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., the Court allowed bail allowing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties after noting conflicting submissions regarding forged seal recovery and lack of independent witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount.

Shailendra Rai Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20077 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shailendra Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Keshri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant Shailendra Rai, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0063 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Sakaldeeha, District Chandauli, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number with accusation of recovery of forged and fictitious seal etc. as narrated in First Information Report, whereas there was no such recovery. There is no independent public witness of alleged recovery. The accused-applicant is of no concern with above occurrence. He is of no criminal antecedents, hence bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that huge quantity of seal of various authorities along with other forged papers were recovered from the premises of accused-applicant.

¶9

Perusal of first information report reveals that it was got lodged on the basis of alleged recovery memo having no independent public witness. The alleged recovery is being said from room of the premises of accused-applicant. He is of no criminal antecedents.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions, nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Shailendra Rai , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal

¶12

bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.5.2019 NS

Shailendra Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Rai 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishar Ahamad @ Raju and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pitambar Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Rajvansi Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Mohan Bhatt Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Raikawar Vs State of U.P.

Annu @ Anoop Batham Vs State of U.P.