Allowed

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023/5047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for applicant Kuldeep Yadav accused of cheating and forgery. Court granted bail citing innocence claim, prior bail grants in other cases, and absence of clear land ownership details in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:66700

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5047 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kuldeep Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivek Chandra, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 988 of 2022, under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 406 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 17.09.2022 against 13 persons, including the applicant, by the informant, who introduce herself as a director of City Doors Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., alleging that she had purchased a piece of land from the applicant and similarly some other parts of land were purchased from two co-accused persons and thereafter the informant's company carved out plots in the land and sold the same to other persons. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the persons who had executed a sale deed in favour of the company were not owners of the land.

¶9

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.

¶10

The applicant's involvement in eight other cases has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, in seven of which the applicant had been granted bail prior to filing of the instant bail application and in the remaining cases also he has been granted bail.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

¶13

the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R does not contain any particulars as to whom the land in question belong as per the informant and that the alleged true owner of the land has not come forward to file any F.I.R against the applicant and also that the applicant has already been granted bail in all the other cases, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.09.2022 and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Kuldeep Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 12.10.2023 Ram.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Jai Prakash Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sonu @ Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhinav Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surjeet Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt Lko.

Ram Nohar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Jumman @ Akbar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.