Allowed

Vikas Tomar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022BAIL/27711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Vikas Tomar accused in a criminal case involving land fraud and forgery. Relying on constitutional protections and Supreme Court precedents, the court held the applicant made a good case for bail but imposed strict conditions regarding evidence tampering, court appearance, and verification of sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, ensuring presence at proceedings, and strict verification of identity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27711 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Abhishek Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Ali Imam

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Syed Ali Imam, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation in the FIR that the land of the informant was sold by way of impersonation by someone and he lodged an FIR which was registered as Case Crime No. 296 of 2016, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police StationKasna, District- Gautam Budh Nagar and the matter is under investigation. In the meantime the co-accused persons, Satish and Jagat Singh, along with applicant have forged a domicile certificate of the first informant which was subsequently cancelled by S.D.M., Sadar. The land mafia which has got the fraudulent sale deed of the land of the informant executed is threatening the informant to enter into compromise. A forged death certificate of the informant was also made by co-accused, Satish, and he represented himself as grandson of the informant, Matru @ Prem Chand and misused the same before consolidation courts.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. During the pendency of the earlier investigation in Case Crime No. 296 of 2016 the present FIR has been lodged. The subject matter of both the FIR's is the same. There is no allegation against the applicant that he has sold the property of the informant or received any compensation for the same. Litigation before the civil courts and consolidation courts is pending between the informant and the co-accused, Jagat Singh and final verdict is yet to come. The offences alleged are triable by Magistrate. The applicant is in jail since 22.04.2022 and has criminal history of one case explained in supplementary affidavit filed today in court.

¶8

On the other hand learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Vikas Tomar, involved in Case Crime No. 1113 of 2021, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC, Police Station- Beeta-2, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, 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.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) 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 then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) 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. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Rohit

¶19

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.08.17 17:51:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Tomar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Tomar 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

Vishal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Nirdesh Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bhallar @ Rajendra Sonkar Vs State of U.P.