Allowed

Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022BAIL/35640/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application for Rajendra Patel accused under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC. Court noted applicant was not a Tehsil employee as alleged and offence is triable by magistrate. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, appearing in trial court, and not inducing any person to supp

Rajendra Patel Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35640 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Rakesh Chandra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Rakesh Chandra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report alleging that the son of informant Suresh Sahu had died in a road accident and the applicant extracted Rs. 56,000/- from the informant in the name of getting him the insurance amount of Rs. 5,62,000/- payable upon death of his son.

¶10

It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

The applicant's criminal history of 27 other cases have been explained by filing a supplementary affidavit. As per which he was acquitted in three cases, one of the cases is regarding a non cognizable offence, two cases under Goonda Act stand closed upon expiry of the stipulated period and two cases under Section 110 G Cr.P.C. also stand closed. In rest of the cases, the applicant has been granted bail.

¶12

Although, it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant extracted the money claiming him to be a clerk in the Tehsil Office, it has been stated in the affidavit that applicant is not employed in the Tehsil Office. The applicant is in jail since 03.07.2022.

¶13

It has been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that the informant claims to have paid certain sum of money for getting the insurance claim from the Tehsil Office, whereas, the applicant is not an employee of the Tehsil Office and also keeping in view of the fact that offence is triable by a magistrate, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant Rajendra Patel be released on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra, 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 evidence.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.11.2022

¶24

Bhanu

¶25

Digitally signed by BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.11.17 15:03:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Patel 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

Panku @ Upendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P.

Jai Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Daulat Singh Jadon Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Hariom @ Deepu Vs State of U.P.

Kuwarpal Vs State of U.P.