Allowed

Bhaiya Lal Gaud v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/5070/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5070 of 2022, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Bhaiya Lal Gaud in a cheating and forgery case. Relying on the protection granted to an instrumental co-accused and the applicant's claim of false implication, the court released him on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict attendance conditions under the Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties complying with conditions regarding attendance and prosecution.

Bhaiya Lal Gaud Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5070 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bhaiya Lal Gaud Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Anish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Bhaiya Lal Gaud with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.348 of 2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, Police Station-Korao, DistrictAllahabad, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that applicant is neither recorded tenure holder nor he is in possession of the plot in dispute in any manner, but his name was falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. It is next submitted that four accused persons, namely Kamlesh Pal, Vansh Dhari Kol, Pawan Yadav and Bali Shankar Sharma were instrumental in the execution of alleged sale deed, but investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the applicant and co-accused Vansh Dhari Kol. Name of the applicant came in the light in the statement of coaccused namely Vansh Dhari Kol, who was the witness of the sale deed. It is further submitted that Co-accused Vansh Dhari Kol was given protection by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2019 in Application U/S 482 No. 10287 of 2019, which runs as follows:

¶8

"Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶9

The contention advanced on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant is merely a marginal witness to the sale deed and is not in any manner benefited by such agreement/contract. It is further contended that the applicant has even in the past been witness to two sale deeds executed in favour of the informant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant in any way defrauded the informant.

¶10

Matter requires consideration.

¶11

Admit.

¶12

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable within six weeks. State may file counter affidavit within aforesaid period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List immediately thereafter for further orders.

¶13

Meanwhile, until further orders, further proceedings of Case No. 575 of 2018, (State v. Banshdhari) arising out of Case Crime No. 0348 of 2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, P.S. Koraon Bazar, District Allahabad including charge sheet dated 28.07.2017 shall remain stayed."

¶14

It is further submitted that entire planning and conspiracy has been done by the co-accused Pawan Yadav, Bali Shankar Sharma and Vansh Dhari Kol. There is no such evidence available on record to establish that the signature on the sale deed was done by the applicant and signature of the Kamlesh Pal and the applicant has not been matched so that it cannot be said that the applicant has made the signature of Kamlesh Pal.

¶15

It is also submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 11.08.2018.

¶16

Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail with regard that applicant was instrumental in getting the sale deed executed as such applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

In reply to the submission of the learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is neither connected in any manner with execution of sale deed nor he is recorded tenure holder.

¶19

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and specially the fact that the co-accused Vanshdhari Kol, has been given protection by this Court, who was instrumental in getting sale deed executed, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶20

Let the applicant-Bhaiya Lal Gaud, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶21

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that 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.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iii) 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

¶24

court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(iv) 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.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶27

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

¶28

¶29

Digitally signed by PRITI SHARMA Date: 2022.05.25 18:08:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhaiya Lal Gaud v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhaiya Lal Gaud 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

Faim Vs State of U.P.

Raju Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kaleem Vs State of U.P.

Murslin Vs State of U.P.

Raj Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others