Allowed

Ram Newaj Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2022BAIL/10382/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application filed under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The applicants, charged with cheating and criminal breach of trust regarding an investment dispute, sought release. Relying on bail orders for co-accused persons under similar facts, the Court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Ram Newaj Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10382 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Newaj Yadav And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shesh Narain Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2.Although, the name Sri Shesh Narayan Mishra has been shown in the cause list as counsel for the respondent but neither he is present in the Court nor he has made any request for adjournment.

¶7

3.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2020, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Police Station Chhawni, District Basti during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶8

4.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report dated 19.11.2020 lodged by the informant against five named accused persons, including the applicants, alleging that the informant was working in Amrit Micro Credit Foundation; that he had invested the total of Rs. 25,000/- in the company and that his mother has invested Rs. 13,800/-. The FIR alleges that the company has not refunded the amount.

¶9

5.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

6.The learned counsel for the applicante has submitted that the co-accused person Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava has been granted bail by means of an order dated 15.06.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10180 of 2021 and another co-accused namely Anjani Srivastava has been granted bail by means of an order dated 24.08.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31709 of 22021 wherein a condition had been imposed by this Court that he would return the amount of Rs. 38,800/- to the informant and his mother within a period of one month from the date of the order through a demand draft.

¶11

7.The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that as the co-accused person had already been granted bail way back on 24.08.2021 subject to a condition of repayment of the entire amount of the informant, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

8.The learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶13

9.The applicants are languishing in jail since 17.12.2020.

¶14

10.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the fact that the case set up against the applicants is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail.

¶15

11.Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions, particularly the fact that the co-accused Anjani Srivastava has already been granted bail and there was a condition in the bail order to return the amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the informant and his mother within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order dated 24.08.2021, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

12.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

13.Let the applicants - Ram Newaj Yadav, Chandra Shekhar Mishra and Ram Subhawan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2020, under Sections 406m 420 IPC, Police Station Chhawni, District Basti, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicants will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶22

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.

¶23

14.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.8.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶25

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.08.08 17:38:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Newaj Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Newaj Yadav and 2 Others 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

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Mannan Vs State of U.P.

Shaleem Vs State of U.P.

Marks Savar Vs State of U.P.

Sheebu @ Akram Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Alias Sanjeev Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.