Allowed

Pullu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2019BAIL/36903/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application where the applicant, accused of cheating and cyber fraud, was released on bail after furnishing bonds and sureties, with conditions to prevent interference with evidence and witnesses. The Court issued bail despite the aggrieved nature of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties with specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36903 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Pullu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Pullu Yadav in connection with Case Crime No.83 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and 66-D I.T.Act, P.S. Farenda, District Maharajganj.

¶8

The first information report was lodged by the complainant with the allegation that during 13.02.2019 to 17.02.2019 a sum of Rs.2,06,349/- were withdrawn from his bank account and when the complainant enquired from the bank then he came to know that the amount was transferred in the account of Phool Chandra Yadav, son of Ram Pyare, resident of Azamgarh and in the account of Ram Belas, son of Jokhai of resident of Gorakhpur.

¶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 the applicant was arrested by the police and on the basis of his confessional statement he was implicated in this case. He submitted that no illegal gain has been received by the applicant. He submitted that all the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of 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 Pullu Yadav 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;

¶17

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 :- 16.10.2019

¶20

R./

Pullu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pullu Yadav 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

Chandu Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Shakeel Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Aale Navi Vs State of U.P.

Majendra @ Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.