Allowed

Yogendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2019BAIL/36558/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application concerning cheating and forgery, the learned judge, though noting a discrepancy regarding the death date of a key alleged victim, found the case fit for bail due to the nature of allegations and circumstances, despite opposing counsel appearing.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

Yogendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36558 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Yogendra Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi,Pt. S.P. Sharma,Sandeep Kumar Tiwari,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Brajesh Kumar Dwivedi and the learned A.G.A.

¶7

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Yogendra Kumar Shukla in connection with Case Crime No.543 of 2009, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Captanganj, District Azamgarh.

¶8

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant in pursuance of an application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and it was alleged by the complainant, Smt. Indu Pandey that the father of the complainant, namely, Jagdish died on 13.07.2018 and Dayaram Pandey was the cousin brother of the complainant, who was not traceable for the last fifty years and the accused person with the intention to illegally grab the property of Dayaram Pandey had prepared a fabricated Power of Attorney by impersonating someone as Dayaram Pandey and the Power of Attorney was fabricated in favour of Yogendra Kumar from the office of Sub-Registrar-III, Kanpur Nagar. It was further alleged that on the basis of forged Power of Attorney Yogendra Kumar had executed a sale deed in favour of his wife Sumitra and his brother's wife namely Deepmala. It was further alleged that now the complainant came to know about the execution of the sale deed then she went to the police station for lodging of the first information report but the report was not lodged and then the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved.

¶9

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 Dayaram Pandey had died on 05.12.2013 and the death certificate of Dayaram Pandey is annexed at page no.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.09.2018 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail plea.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment,

¶12

the evidence appearing against the accused and also considering the fact that Dayaram Pandey was alive and died in the year 2013, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Yogendra Kumar Shukla 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:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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;

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.10.2019

¶20

R./

Yogendra Kumar Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Shukla 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

Om Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ganesh Upadhyay @ Aditya Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Usman Vs State of U.P.

Ashoutaosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepti Sharma Vs State of U.P.