Allowed

Yogendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2019BAIL/32506/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC concerning cheating and crooked trade practices, the court held the case fit for bail despite the gravity of offences, allowing the applicant to be released on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on executing personal bond with two sureties and compliance of specified conditions.

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32506 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Verma, Mr. Kamal Krishna, Sr. Adv. Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Yogendra Singh in connection with Case Crime No.1864 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Sector-20 Noida, District Gautambuddh Nagar.

¶7

The first information report of this incident was lodged by one Jitendra Yadav, who is managing a tea stall in Chiranjiv Vihar. It has been further mentioned that the applicant, Yogendra Singh and one Mohd. Aftab Kalam, claiming themselves to be property dealers, came to his shop regularly and used to take help from the complainant in locating the properties, which were for sale. It has also been further mentioned in the first information report that after sometime they said that they can arrange job in various Government departments and then the complainant called his various relatives and acquaintances for securing the job in various Government departments. It was further mentioned in the first information report that the applicant had taken about Rs.50.60 lacs from various persons, who were desirous to secure the job.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the police during investigation has recorded the statement of the complainant only and no statement of any other persons, who are alleged to have paid the money to the applicant, has been recorded. He further submitted that there is no documentary evidence of any type to prove that the complainant or any other persons had given the money to the applicant and his associates. He further submitted that there is only verbal allegations in the first information report and during investigation that Rs.50.60 lacs were paid to the applicant and his associates. He submitted that all the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2018 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea and has fairly accepted that in the charge-sheet only the complainant has been nominated as witness and no other witness has been cited in the charge-sheet.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of

¶11

allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Yogendra Singh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 18.9.2019

¶19

R./

Yogendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Singh 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

Ram Kishore Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kaushalya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rapsan Vs State of U.P.

Vedpal Vs State of U.P.

Awadhesh Kumar @ Sheelu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nekse Vs State of U.P.