Allowed

Shashikant Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024/10773/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving cheating, forgery, and Indian Penal Code offenses, noting that co-accused were already released and the applicant had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to not tampering with evidence or pressuring witnesses.

Shashikant Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73332

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10773 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shashikant Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar,Amit Bhardwaj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Kumar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records.

¶7

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/9 of U.P. Public Examination Act, & Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 13.12.2022 against eleven persons, including the applicant alleging that the co-accused Ritesh Kumar was a candidate for selection process held by U.P. Police Recruitment Board for the post of Sub Inspector. He did not submit his original documents for scrutiny on 07.05.2022 and subsequently it came to light that another co-accused Ajay Chauhan had taken Rs.15,00,000/- from him for getting him recruited and he had retained his original documents and was demanding Rs.3,50,000/- further for returning his original certificates. Regarding the applicant it is stated that he had mediated for the dealing.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely

¶10

implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. It has also been submitted that two co-accused, namely, Ritesh Kumar and Brijeet @ B.K. Singh have already been granted bail by this Court by means of orders dated 11.05.2023 and 24.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6210 of 2023 and 9285 of 2023 respectively.

¶11

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

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the only allegation against the applicant is of having mediated between the coaccused person Ritesh Kumar and Ajay Chauhan, that the coaccused Ritesh Kumar and B.K. Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this court coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 30.08.2024 and without making any observation, 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 in the aforesaid crime.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Shashikant Ram be released on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/9 of U.P. Public Examination Act, & Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 6.11.2024 -Amit K-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shashikant Ram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Ram 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avinash Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

M/S Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Lmt. Thru. Its Dir. Dhananjay Subramanium and 3 Others vs the Directorate of Enforcement (Ed) Deptt. of Revenue Thru. Direct. and 3 Others

Neeraj Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Mohammad Shahban vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Usman vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.