Allowed

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024/1616/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application framed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC challenging the maintenance, false implication, and seeking grant of bail for the applicant considering parity and total circumstances. The court granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and adjournments.

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28444

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1616 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Singh,Desh Deepak Singh,Ravindra Kumar Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Counter afÏdavit and rejoinder afÏdavit filed by learned counsel for the parties are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.342 of 2021 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that co-accused, Jitendra & Anoop Srivastava having identical role, have already been granted bail by this Court, vide orders dated 4.4.2023 & 4.7.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.4040 of 2023 & 8159 of 2023 (bail order is appended as annexure No.6 to the bail application). In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail, but he conceded the fact that co-accused, Jitendra & Anoop Srivastava have already been granted bail by this Court.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents, bail order of the co-accused, Jitendra & Anoop Srivastava, ground of parity as well as totality of

¶12

fact and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Let applicant - Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(iv) 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 sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If

¶20

in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.4.2024 Gaurav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Surya Narayan Vs Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsil-Milkipur, Ayodhya

Sangam Kumar Verma @ Sangam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Praveen Kumar Dubey Vs Niteesh Kumar District Magistrate Ayodhya and Others

Amrendra Kumar Singh @ Babloo Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Nabab vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow