Allowed

Vikas Kumar Katiyar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2020BAIL/3489/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an applicant accused of cheating and forgery who admits being a witness to an agreement. The court held that while the applicant was falsely implicated and a civil suit was pending, a bail case was made out despite a prior case history of the co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail via personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence, not indulge in criminal activity, not intimidate witnesses, and appear regularly.

Vikas Kumar Katiyar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3489 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Kumar Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Parcha filed by Sri Sharad Chandra Singh and Sri Satish Chandra Singh on behalf of applicant and Vakalatnama filed by Sri Atal Bihari Tripathi on behalf of informant are taken on record.

¶6

By means of this application the applicant Vikas Kumar Katiyar has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 888 of 2019, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Heard Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atal Bihari Tripathi, learned counsel for informant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. The accused-applicant is a witness of alleged agreement to sell and he admits that he is a witness of agreement to sell. Utmost the allegation against him is only of criminal conspiracy. Rather he admits himself to be a bonafide witness of the agreement to sell. A civil suit was filed by coaccused Dharmendra Kumar and then after above F.I.R. was lodged by informant with false accusation. He is of no concern with fabricating any document. There is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence, in case he is released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶9

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant has vehemently opposed the bail application with this contention that on previous occasion co-accused Dharmendra had committed same fraud with some one in which the applicant was a witness, for which there is a report of Notary that no such notorization was made by him.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that this agreement was neither presented nor executed nor got attested by above

¶11

Notory by the applicant. Admittedly the applicant is neither a beneficiary nor a person in whose favour the deed was executed. Rather he is a witness of above deed and he has admitted himself to be a witness of the above deed. Challenge to it is before civil court. The case crime number was got registered after receiving of notice of filing of civil suit by Dharmendra. The matter of being accused is pending before competent civil court. In previous case there had occurred a compromise and charge sheet was submitted. Hence under all above facts and circumstances and without commenting on merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. However, it will not be treated as parity for other co-accused, which shall be decided on the merit of that case.

¶12

Let the applicant, Vikas Kumar Katiyar, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the 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 :- 22.1.2020

¶19

Pcl

Vikas Kumar Katiyar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar Katiyar 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

Patalu Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aibad Ulla and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Saran Das Vs State of Up and Another

Nafees Alam Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Rai Vs State of U.P.

Ajam Vs State of U.P.