Allowed

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2021BAIL/8786/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Rajendra Prasad, implicated in a cheating and forgery case. The court found merit in the counsel's submissions regarding false implication and jail overcrowding, ordering the applicant's release on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8786 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Lal Ram,Gyanendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Indra Prakash Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.109 of 2020 at Police Station-Lalpur Pandeypur, District-Varanasi on 25.08.2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 34 IPC.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Varanasi on 06.01.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 11.04.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is not associated in any manner with the company running under the name and style of Casita Infra Project Developers Limited as the director or as an employee. The informant has alleged that she was induced into making investments in Casita Infra

¶10

Project Developers Limited. The informant claims that the applicant does not have any concern with the company. Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the the applicant was named in some other criminal cases in respect of companies in which he was the Director. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief with the co-accused-Amar Nath Maurya, who has been granted bail by this Court in judgement rendered on 07.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.2089 of 2021. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant-Rajendra Prasad involved in Case Crime No.109 of 2020 at Police Station-Lalpur Pandeypur, District-Varanasi under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶16

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions,

¶21

the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.11.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P. and Another

Triveni Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hardwari Lal Vs State of U.P.

Mehraj Vs State of U.P.