Allowed

Ram Raj Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023/660/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to Ram Raj Vishwakarma in a cheating case involving inordinate three-and-a-half-year FIR delay, noting the complainant still possessed the alleged property and an undertaking was given. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ram Raj Vishwakarma released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions.

Ram Raj Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 660 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Raj Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 20.11.2022 in Case Crime No. 685 of 2022 u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B IPC, P.S. Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶7

Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident is indicated as 31.5.2019. However, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 21.10.2022 i.e. after three years and five months. The reason for the aforesaid inordinate delay has not been explained in the F.I.R. Learned counsel has further submitted that even if the allegation of the F.I.R. is taken on its face value, in that case the informant / complainant has yet not been dispossessed from his piece of land which is said to have been sold out to another person by the present applicant. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that there is delay of three years and five months in lodging of the F.I.R. and such delay has not been explained, the area of the property is still within the possession of the informant / complainant, charge-sheet has been filed and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Let the applicant Ram Raj Vishwakarma , involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) 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. 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

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

¶15

(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

¶16

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.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶18

Before parting with it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures as per law if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial properly. The learned trial court shall fix short dates to ensure that trial is concluded at the earliest.

¶19

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Om

¶21

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Raj Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Raj Vishwakarma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kejriwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl.Chief Secy. Home and Another

Brijeash Saurabh Mishra @ Brijesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Monu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Madhvesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. of Home Civil Sect. Lko