Allowed

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022BAIL/31572/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding cheating and forgery, the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowed release on bail, noting the FIR lacked specific details on payments and prior criminal history showed no material evidence against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail by depositing personal bond and two sureties.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31572 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sandeep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj,Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.04.2022 alleging that the applicant had assured to get informant and any other person employed in the Government Departments. As per the F.I.R. averments, the informant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- for getting employed and he also paid Rs. 33,60,000/- to the applicant for getting various persons known to him employed through the applicant. It is further alleged that the applicant had took Rs. 12,50,000/- from some other persons to get them also employed. The total sum alleged to have been paid to the applicant by the informant and other persons is alleged to be 63,43,000/- in the F.I.R.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been stated in the affidavit that the applicant is a poor person running coaching class.

¶9

The criminal history of the applicant has been disclosed in Paragraph No. 16 of the affidavit and Paragraph No. 2 of the supplementary affidavit, as per which, the applicant has no concern with Case Crime No. 354 of 2017. In Case Crime No, 774 of 2019, the Police has submitted a final report. In NCR No. 79 of 2017, the applicant was not named and his name does not finds place even in the chargesheet and in Case Crime No. 345 of 2019, the Police has submitted a final report.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant himself is not in Government service. The allegation is hat he projected himself in such an influential situation that he could get other persons employed, prima facie appears to be unbelievable.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the

¶12

prayer for grant of bail.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that although the F.I.R. alleges payment of huge sums by various persons, neither the date or the time of making the payment nor mode of payment has been mentioned in the F.I.R; as per the F.I.R. allegations, the informant himself had collected money from several persons in the name of getting them employed; apparently through illegals means; that all the offences are triable by a Magistrate and all the criminal cases metioned in the criminal history of the applicant, no material has been found against the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant Sandeep be released on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

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

¶19

(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 evidence.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.12.2022 Jaswant

¶22

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.05 11:38:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P.

Anand Nishad @ Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Abhimanyu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Ujagir Yadav Vs D.R.I.

Ramsanehi Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Sazid Vs State of U.P.