Allowed

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2022/7306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application in a cheating and forgery case. Considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the applicant's criminal history, the court found it a fit case for release on bail subject to conditions including personal surety.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions regarding attendance and non-tampering with witnesses.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7306 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Misra,Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh,Pradeep Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the counsel for complainant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri B.N. Nishad, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 651 of 2021, under Section 395 IPC, P.S.- Sarojini Nagar, District - Lucknow.

¶8

The counsel for the applicant submits that he has received the copy of the counter affidavit but there is nothing, so as to contradict the same by filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further added that present applicant is neither president nor member of the trust and he was not indulged in any kind of financial transaction so far as the allegation in the FIR is concerned. He further added that the present applicant and six other persons were named in the FIR but there is no specific allegation against the present applicant so far as taking the amount of Rs. 62,52,000/- as well as fortuner car is concerned. He also added that in fact the FIR is delayed by

¶10

three years as the incident is said to have taken place on 06.01.2018 and FIR was lodged on 04.12.2021, after moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Next submits that name of the present applicant has been implicated as there was certain enmity between the informant and present applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 33 of the bail application. He also added that brother of the informant namely Ratnakar Upadhyay is a history sheeter as having 13 cases criminal history and by way of lodging the instant FIR, he is mounting pressure to extort the money from the present applicant. He submits that charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and, as such, there is no possibility of the applicant to flee away from the investigation proceedings. The applicant is in jail since 30.04.2022. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer of bail and submits that there are serious allegation against the present applicant and he is named in the FIR. He also added that applicant has three cases criminal history and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there are general allegation against all the accused persons; further FIR is delayed by three years as the incident is said to have taken place on 06.01.2018 and FIR was lodged on 04.12.2021; the criminal history of the applicant has been explained, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 30.04.2022, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Ajay Pratap Singh involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a

¶14

personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be

¶21

construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.10.2022 Ujjawal

¶23

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.10.11 19:35:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Munna @ Imran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shree Prakash Diwedi @ Prakash Diwedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Ghildyal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Seyc. Home Lko.

Jainendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramu Harijan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.