Allowed

Sagar Rajbhar v. State of Up Thru Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2022BAIL/56126/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving charges of forgery and cheating. The court finds the case fit for bail due to lack of independent public witnesses and the applicant's explanation of criminal history, without expressing a view on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance at trial and not tampering with evidence.

Sagar Rajbhar Vs State of Up Thru Secretary Home Up… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56126 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sagar Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thru Secretary Home Up At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 461 of 2021, under Sections 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66C, 66D I.T. Act, Police Station-Kokhraj, District Kaushambi.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further added that as per the version of the FIR, five ATM Cards and two mobile phones are said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant and he is involved in committig the forgery and cheating. He further submits that there is no independent public witness account of the said incident and police has falsely planted him in the instant matter due to old enmity. He further submits that apart from this case, applicant has criminal history of two cases, which he has satisfactorily explained in the bail application. He further submits that applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 25.10.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that applicant is named in the FIR and he is involved in committing the aforesaid offence.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that there is no independent public witness account of the said incident and police has falsely planted him in the instant matter; applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history; applicant is a

¶10

law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 25.10.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sagar Rajbhar involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

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

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of

¶18

any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.3.2022 Ashutosh

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH SINGH Date: 2022.03.17 10:47:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sagar Rajbhar v. State of Up Thru Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Rajbhar v. State of Up Thru Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Administrative Officer Vs Smt. Prema Devi and 6 Others

Mohammad Ali Shan and Another Vs Manish Agarwal

Jaskamal Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and Ors.

Shanu Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Yadav @ Krishna Vs State of U.P.