Allowed

Markandey v. State of U P

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2021BAIL/22975/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a bail filed for offences under Section 419, 420, and 406 of IPC. The court found that the applicant was falsely implicated as he was merely a marginal witness, not the executor or beneficiary of the alleged sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding evidence tampering, cooperation with trial, and refraining from criminal activities.

Markandey Vs State of U P — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22975 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Markandey Opposite Party :- State Of U P Counsel for Applicant :- Deep Mala Srivastava,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajan Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 169 of 2018, under Section 419, 420 & 406 of I.P.C. registered at P.S.Atraulia, District- Azamgarh.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submitted that neither the applicant executed the sale deed, nor he is beneficiary in the alleged sale deed. The applicant is a marginal witness of the alleged sale deed. Further submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22561 of 2021 vide order dated 05.08.2021 wherein F.I.R. was lodged by the purchaser of the aforesaid impugned sale deed. Further submitted that for the same offence, applicant cannot be prosecuted twice. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.10.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the facts as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.

¶10

Perusal of record reveals that the applicant has been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22561 of 2021 vide order dated 05.08.2021 wherein FIR was lodged by the purchaser of the aforesaid impugned sale deed. Neither the applicant executed the sale deed, nor he is beneficiary in the

¶11

alleged sale deed. He was a marginal witness of the aforesaid sale deed.

¶12

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Markandey involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶17

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶18

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.12.2021 VPS

¶20

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR OJHA Date: 2021.12.03 17:00:43 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Markandey v. State of U P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Markandey 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

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shahid @ Nisar Vs State of U.P.

Shahid @ Puppy Vs State of U.P.

Reyaz Vs State of U.P.

Sudip Kumar Verma @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.