Allowed

Yatendra Alias Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022BAIL/23620/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Yatendra Alias Sonu in a criminal case involving cheating and forgery. Despite the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and the serious nature of the charges, the court found that the prosecution had not collected credible evidence against the applicant. Consequently, the court viewed that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted it subject t

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to cooperation with the trial and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or committing fu

Yatendra Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23620 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Yatendra Alias Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Shukla,Komal Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Sharma,Gavrav Sharma.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.538 of 2021 registered under Sections 365, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is alleged in the FIR that mother of the of the informant was owner of Khata No. 482, Khasra No. 963 area 0.240 hecatures situated at village Daulatpur, Tehsil and District Mathura. On 16.11.2015 she executed a registered sale deed of the said land in favour of Narendra Pathak and and Jagmohan Pathak and an amount of consideration of Rs. 35,00,000/- was deposited in her account. It is further alleged that on 27.11.2015 the applicant and co-accused prepared forged Adhar Card in the name of Divya Sharma and purchased a house in her name and it is also alleged that co-accused with the help of his son had withdrawn the amount of Rs 10,00,000/-.

¶9

The FIR is lodged after 7 years of the incident. There is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. Allegation in the FIR is that regarding incidents occurred on 16.11.2015 and 27.11.2015, the Investigation Officer had recorded statement of one witness and submitted charge sheet. Prosecution has not collected credible evidence against the applicant that the applicant was involved this case. It is further argued that from the perusal of the counter affidavit, it is evident that amount of Rs 10 lakhs was transferred through NEFT method by mother of the informant in the account of the applicant. Criminal

¶10

history of six cases of the applicant has been explained in para13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in all cases the applicant has been released on bail.

¶11

The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.4.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another , S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Yatendra alias Sonu, who is involved in the aforesaid 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.

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.12.2022

¶20

S.K.S.

¶21

Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.13 17:39:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yatendra Alias Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yatendra Alias Sonu 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

Ayushi Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anirudh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Bittu @ Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Talib Vs State of U.P.