Allowed

Vijay Shankar Bajpai @ Pappoo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 May 2024/1874/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a cheating and forgery case involving a conveyance deed. The applicant undertook to return the sale consideration within six months of release, with the informant agreeing to surrender possession and seek cancellation of the sale deed; the court allowed the bail application on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2022 on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000 each, conditioned on returning the sale consideration within six months.

Vijay Shankar Bajpai @ Pappoo Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36690

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1874 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Shankar Bajpai @ Pappoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Srivastava, Yogesh Somvanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2 . In terms of the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2023, supplementary afÏdavit has been filed, wherein the applicant has accepted that he would return the sale consideration amount as mentioned in the deed of conveyance within six months from his release to the first informant, the said condition is accepted to the first informant also. It is further stated that after the sale consideration is returned to the first informant, the first informant should be directed to surrender the possession as well as for cancellation of the registered sale-deed.

¶8

3 . The counsel for the informant states that the he is ready and willing to surrender the possession and to get the sale deed cancelled from a competent court of law subject to the condition that the deponent would pay the cost of registration, which includes stamp duty etc, which is also accepted to the deponent as expressed by his counsel.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

5. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the informant, the applicant is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

6. Let the applicant Vijay Shankar Bajpai @ Pappoo be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 311 of 2022, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(a) The applicant would pay the sale consideration as reflected in the conveyance fee within a period of six months from the date of his release to the first informant. It is recorded that the accused as well as first informant shall take steps for cancellation of the sale deed by moving an appropriate application before the Court concerned. The accused shall also return the stamp duty etc. paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, when the final order of quashing of the registered sale deed is passed in between the parties.

¶13

(b) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(c) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(d) 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

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Arun

¶17

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

Vijay Shankar Bajpai @ Pappoo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Shankar Bajpai @ Pappoo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Similar cases

Ramkaran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Tasouver Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mainuddin @ Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Basanti Tiwari Vs State Thru. C.B.I. New Delhi

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru. Secy. Home Lko.and Others

Latif Ansari vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home