Allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2022BAIL/16324/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicant's bail application in a cheating case under the IPC, relying on the fact that a co-accused working on the same post was already released on bail under similar circumstances, subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties to each, with conditions to appear in court and not interfere with evidence or witnesses.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16324 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Anil Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0883 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against three persons including the applicant, alleging that the informant had taken Kisan Vikas Patra worth Rs. 3,00,000/- on 08.01.2010 through Late Lallan Singh, who was an agent of the post office and whose son P. K. Singh is also an agent after the death of his father. After the aforesaid Kisan Vikas Patra got matured on 08.08.2018, the informant went to withdraw the maturity amount on 07.06.2019 and one Sunil Kumar Yadav, an employee of the post office referred him to the agent P. K. Singh.

¶8

4.As per the informant's case, the named accused P. K. Singh took his original Kisan Vikas Patra and pass book. It is stated that thereafter the applicant repeatedly contacted the agent P. K. Singh and the employee Sunil Kumar Yadav and allegedly, they stated that no payment will be made without recommendation of the applicant. The informant has further alleged that he contacted the applicant and that the applicant said that all his work has been done.

¶9

5.It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that applicant has been falsely implicated whereas he is innocent.

¶10

6.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that another co-accused Sunil Kumar Yadav has already been

¶11

granted bail by this Court by means of an order dated 24.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17270 of 2022.

¶12

7.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 person, who has already been released on bail. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶13

8.The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.01.2022.

¶14

9.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 applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused person, who has already been released on bail.

¶15

10.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and submissions, particularly the fact that the the co-accused Sunil Kumar Yadav has already been granted bail; that both the applicant and the co-accused are working on the same post and that the cases set up against both of them are similar in nature, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶16

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

¶17

12.Let the applicant - Rajesh Kumar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0883 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi 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 applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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

¶22

evidence.

¶23

13.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 :- 8.8.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶25

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.08.16 14:06:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar 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

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

Marks Savar Vs State of U.P.

Sheebu @ Akram Vs State of U.P.

Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Ram Nivas Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Shahzaman @ Naiyar Vs State of U.P.