Allowed

Lavkush Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024/175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with cheating and forgery, finding his role minor and imposing a personal bond and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in like amount, along with standard conditions of bail.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11703

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 175 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lavkush Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and investigation of this case is still going on.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶9

This application has been moved by the applicant- Lavkush Yadav for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.045 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged at Police Station Gadaganj, District Raebareli.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. Even if the case of the prosecution, as is evident from the FIR as well as from the statement of the prosecution witnesses, is believed as it is, it will emerge that the role which has been assigned to the applicant is of visiting the house of the informant with the other co-accused persons who had taken Rs. 1 Lakh from the informant and, beyond that, there is no allegation against the applicant. As per the case of the prosecution, fraud of providing a government job in lieu of some money has been committed by co-accused persons and the money has also been taken by them and only role which has been assigned to the applicant is that he had accompanied few co-accused persons at relevant day when Rs. 1 Lakh was received by them. The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and criminal history of one case has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today and there is no apprehension that the applicant after release on anticipatory bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled for any protection.

¶12

Considering the fact that the allegations with regard to providing government job in lieu of some money has not been alleged against the applicant and he has been assigned the role only to the extent that he had accompanied some co-accused persons when they (co-accused persons) had gone to collect Rs.1 Lakh from the informant and criminal history of one case has been explained adequately, the facility of anticipatory bail may be extended in favour of the applicant and his liberty may be protected.

¶13

Thus, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant, is allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Lavkush Yadav , involved in the above noted case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/Investigating Officer/Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the District concerned without the previous permission of the Court.

¶17

(iv) The applicant, in case of submission of adverse police report under section 173(2) CrPC against him, shall remain present before the trial Court on each and every dates as and when his presence would be required by the trial Court and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶18

The trial Court, in case of submission of adverse police report under Section 173(2) CrPC against the applicant, may impose any other suitable condition, in addition to the above-mentioned conditions imposed by this Court, for procuring the presence of the applicant before it.

¶19

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the

¶20

condition placed above 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 shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶21

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lavkush Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavkush Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

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

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jahiruddin @ Musa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Pushkar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and Another

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mahesh Prasad Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another