Dismissed¶16

Mukesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/1422/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection; cheating/forgery/criminal conspiracy charges (Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC); unexplained frequent bank transactions defeating 'student' claim; retiral benefits of Rs. 50 lakh routed to applicant; land agreement of Rs. 20 lakh with deceased Ajay Singh and Rs. 15 lakh RTGS; prosecution allegations of intoxicated execution of agreement, sham marriage with forged Arya Samaj Mandir (Barabanki) certificate and attempted mutation at Nagar Palika, Akbarpur; call details with Pawan Pandey; Ambedkar Nagar; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; direction for expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the applicant; bail application dismissed. Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments. ¶16

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31203

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1422 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri V.K. Sahai, Learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. as well as Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.319 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 17.11.2023. He further submitted that the applicant is a student and he completed his LL.B. in the year 2017-18 but due to his poor health, he could not get enrolled in U.P. Bar Council. He further submitted that the father of the applicant worked in Railway Department and after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020, he received retiral benefits.

¶9

The father of applicant is present before this Court and he admitted that after retirement, he received retiral benefit amounting Rs.50,00,000/- in his account which was open in the branch of State Bank of India and the said amount was given to his son.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant entered into an agreement with Ajay Singh, son of the complainant for purchase of land in lieu of the sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and the said agreement was executed on 25.08.2020, thereafter, Rs.15,00,000/- was transferred in the account of Ajay Singh through R.T.G.S.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Ajay Singh,

¶12

son of complainant died in an accident then a legal notice was given to his family members for execution of the sale deed, thereafter, applicant was implicated in the present case on the basis of incorrect facts. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal antecedent and charge sheet has already been filed and he is ready to cooperate in the trial. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Shri V.K.Sahai, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that the applicant is associated with one Pawan Pandey who is having long criminal antecedent and only with the intention to cover up himself, he got admission in LL.B. in the college which was being run by Pawan Pandey. They also drew attention of this Court on the call details in between applicant and Pawan Pandey as well as his assistant, namely, Nalinesh Tiwari from the year 2021-2023, as during the said period, more than 1200 times, applicant was in conversation with the aforesaid people. They next drew attention of the Court on the photographs annexed as C.A.-12 to the counter affidavit and submitted that applicant and his associates gave some toxicated substance to Ajay Singh to obtain the sale agreement and the Investigating Officer also wrote a letter to the State Government for necessary action against the registering authority of the agreement to sell. They further submitted that after the agreement, sham marriage of Ajay Singh was solemnized with Neetu Singh who was earlier married with one Suraj and from their wedlock, a girl was born who is aged about 4 years, and after the death of Ajay Singh, Neetu Singh with other associates including the applicant tried to mutate her name in the record of Nagar Palika, Akbarpur, Ambedkar Nagar as wife of Ajay Singh and when this fact came into the notice of the complainant, a complaint was made, and after detailed inquiry, it was found that no such marriage was solemnized between deceased Ajay Singh and Neetu Singh and the marriage certificate which was allegedly issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Safedabad, Barabanki was found forged. They further submitted that after detailed investigation, sufficient evidences have been found against the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., call details, photographs annexed as CA-12 to the counter affidavit, other relevant documents as well as totality of fact and circumstances, it is evident that the applicant is aged about 40 years and the statement of account of the applicant reveals that frequent transactions were being made in his account but source

¶15

of aforesaid transactions has not been disclosed except the transaction made from the account of his father, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a student is unacceptable. As the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on the basis of evidence by which, involvement of the applicant is found in the present case. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby dismissed.

¶17

Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 V. Sinha

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Vs Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Gonda

Vivek Kumar Pandey Vs Shri Sadanand Saroj, S.D.M., Ambedkar Nagar

C/M Sitaram Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Pratapgarh Thru. Its Manager Ram Kishor Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jai Ram Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Lal Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.