Allowed

Shyamraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2022BAIL/7780/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Shyamraj, accused under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC and Section 66(D) of IT Act. The applicant claimed false implication and lack of connection to the actual offender. The court found bail grounds sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Shyamraj on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7780 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shyamraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Baijant Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the applicant was not named in the FIR. The money was transferred to the bank account of principal offender Shyam Raj who was also running a Jan Sewa Kendra. The said Shyam Raj had taken clone of thumb impression of the victims. The applicant is not a beneficiary of any illicit transaction. The applicant does not have any association with the said Shyam Raj. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. It is further submitted that co-accused Jitendra Gupta and Deepak Kumar have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 7938 of 2022 and Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 7947 of 2022 by order dated 29.6.2022 and 16.5.2022 respectively. Pleading false implication it is lastly contended that the accused applicant is languishing in jail since 20.11.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶7

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

In this matter, it appears that all the three accused persons including the applicant were arrested and joint recovery has been made by the police from the three accused persons. Two co-accused persons have been granted bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.11.2021. Grounds for bail are sufficient. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , 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.

¶9

Let the applicant Shyamraj involved in Case Crime No. 342 of 2021 at Police Station Tarya Sujan, District Kushinagar under Sections 420, 467, 468, IPC and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

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

¶13

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶16

Submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. The trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.12.2022//Fhd

¶18

Digitally signed by FAHAD NIYAZ Date: 2022.12.07 13:28:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shyamraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamraj 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

Jan Mohammad Vs State

Raghubir Singh Vs State

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Sri Ram Krishna and Others

Shakib @ Kasib Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rajkumari @ Jhabara Wali @ Atar Kunwar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Haider Vs State of U.P.