Allowed

Vijay Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2021BAIL/32023/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with cheating and forgery offences. The court found it to be a fit case for bail, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Grants bail via personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions on court appearance, no adjournment seeking, and trial conclusion within one year.

Vijay Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32023 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 528 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411, 120-B IPC Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi.

¶7

The allegation made by the informant in the present F.I.R. is that applicant is the owner of Satnam Roadwage Transport and on 14.6.2021 he loaded 35 ton grain upon the truck No. U.P. 50 CT- 0118 and send grain to the Katak Orissa but aforesaid grain could not reached at the place and after contact to the driver he stated that aforesaid grain will reach but aforesaid grain has not reached the said place.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant was arrested on 28.6.2021 and from his possession, Rs.1,50,000/- has been recovered. He further submits that the recovered amount is applicant's own money which has been collected by fare of the vehicle. There is no public witness or independent witness who has made signature upon the alleged recovery . The recovery that has been shown is false and fabricated. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle and his vehicle was driven by his driver, namely, Dharmendra and co-driver Hariom so the applicant has no knowledge about the incident because all transaction of the transportation was doing by the driver and co-driver. It is further submitted that police concern has taken custody of

¶9

the aforesaid truck at the time of arresting the applicant which has also been released by the court concerned. Lastly, it has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 2.7.2021. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He contended that applicant is the owner of he vehicle and the same was driven by him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a vehicle of 18 tires truck which is loaded about 35 ton grain, cannot be driven by a single person without any assistance or co-driver.

¶12

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Vijay Pratap Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during

¶17

trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.9.2021 SY

Vijay Pratap Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pratap 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

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Vs State of U.P.

Shahbaz Vs State of U.P.

Hairi @ Akashdeep Vs State of U.P.