Dismissed

Gulab Lal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2023BAIL/25198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a bail application by Gulab Lal Yadav facing charges of forgery, cheating, corruption, and passport misuse. The court found the applicant procured a passport using forged documents and bribed a public servant. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Bail application granted to the applicant is rejected.

Gulab Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128508

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25198 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Gulab Lal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Gulab Lal Yadav , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 215 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 12 of Passport Act and Section 8/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Khalilabad (Kotwali), District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

The first information report of the present case was lodged on 07.03.2023 under Sections 419, 420, 120-B, Section 66, & 66C of the Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Section 29 Police Act, 1861 and Section 7,8,13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by Anshuman Mishra, C.O., Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar against S.I. Kameshwar Mishra, Constable Manoj Kumar Patel and Virendra Yadav alleging therein that he conducted an enquiry under the directions of the Superintendent of Police. In the enquiry, it transpired that a total of 101 forms from various police stations of Part-A were found to be not cleared. They were of the year 2021-2022. Constable Manoj Kumar Patel was looking after the work of passport since August 2015. He changed the reports himself upto December 2021 which were sent from the concerned police station. In January 2022 he was transferred in the L.I.U. unit in Mehdawal Beat but on the pretext of explaining work to the persons there he used to regularly visit the office and since he knew the ID and password of the district he used to change the Part-A report of not cleared to cleared. On 12.04.2022 S.I. Kameshwar Mishra was posted in the Passport Cell. Constable Manoj Kumar Patel and S.I. Kameshwar Mishra developed relationship since Manoj Kumar Patel used to visit the office and hence Kameshwar Mishra had told the changed password and ID of the district to Manoj Kumar Patel and thus the not cleared reports were changed to cleared status. Manoj Kumar Patel had taken Rs. 3000/- from one Virendra Yadav for changing the report. From the said money, he had given Rs. 1000/- to S.I. Kameshwar Mishra. Manoj Kumar Patel thus misused the ID and password of the Passport Cell and for illegal gains in connivance with S.I. Kameshwar Mishra and Virendra Yadav committed the acts. The first information report was thus lodged.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is argued that there is no allegation against him in the first information report but during investigation on 06.05.2023 the applicant was arrested, then the police has recorded his confessional statement and has made him an accused. It is argued that from the pocket of the applicant Rs. 150/- was recovered which is not incriminating in any manner. It is argued that the applicant was arrested from his native place on 05.05.2023 in the evening but his arrest has been shown on 06.05.2023 in an illegal manner. It is further argued while plaicng paragraph 10 of the affidavit that co-accused Virendra has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18236 of 2023, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-4 to the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 13 of the affidavit and is in jail since 06.05.2023. It is next argued that co-accused Abdul Salam has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21725 of 2023, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although the applicant is not named in the first information report but his implication has surfaced in the matter during investigation. It is further argued that the applicant was previously holding the passport on which he visited Thailand wherein he was blacklisted. After the said incident the applicant applied for a fresh passport for himself by forging documents in the name of Hari Prasad. The said passport was subjected of police clearance in which a not cleared report was given which was subsequently changed to cleared by the accused persons. Subsequently a passport was issued in the name of Hari Prasad on which the applicant travelled from Delhi to Thailand on 18.01.2023 and came back to Delhi on 19.01.2023. It is argued that during investigation the said fact transpired from checking the SDR of a mobile number given by the applicant from which it came to be known that the person who had applied for the passport is the applicant and not Hari Prasad as no person by the name of Hari Prasad was found in the enquiry and also as stated by the concerned Village Pradhan and as such the physical verification of Hari Prasad was not done. It is argued that even the documents annexed for getting the passport in the name of Hari Prasad are forged documents. It is argued that even during investigation it transpired that the holder of the said passport in the name of Hari Prasad has travelled to Thailand. It is argued that the entire incident is of fake documents provided by the applicant, then a negative police report which was subsequently changed in an illegal manner to cleared status and then a passport was issued in the name of the said fake person which was used by the applicant. It is argued that the applicant was the beneficiary of the said act due to which he had managed to get a passport issued. It is further argued that Head Constable Manoj Kumar Patel applied for bail before this Court which has been rejected vide order dated 09.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19675 of 2023, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is taken on record. It is argued that the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶11

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant has indulged in procuring the passport on the basis of forged and fictitious documents in the name of a fictitious person. He also managed to illegaly get an act done by public servant for getting his not cleared police report changed to the status of being cleared. He was involved in bribing a public servant. He then has used the said passport for travelling overseas once. The applicant is the beneficiary of the same. The bail of co-accused Head Constable Manoj Kumar Patel has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 26.6.2023 AS Rathore

¶14

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulab Lal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Lal Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saiyyad Abu Tharab Ali Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Israr Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Ydaav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another