Allowed

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024/2438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against bail rejection in an SC/ST Act case involving cheque disputes. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting bail, finding the trial court failed to consider that the appellant's involvement was limited to verifying a sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; trial to be concluded within one year.

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9533

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2438 of 2023 Appellant :- Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Trivedi,Ravi Pandey,Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar,Suhail Kashif Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No.2127 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.332/2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(f) of SC/ST Act, Police StationKotwali, District- Unnao.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case as there is no evidence against him in the entire case diary except the mobile number which is mentioned in the sale deed because he verified the contents of the sale deed as he was discharging his legal duty but all these facts were not considered by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted. He further submitted that the trial court also rejected the bail application of the appellant in the most mechanical manner. He further submitted that the appellant is having criminal antecedent of three other cases, in two cases, he is on bail and in one case, he has been acquitted, and in the present case, appellant is in jail since 30.06.2023, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that the complainant went to the seat of the appellant for legal advice regarding the mutation of his name in the property which was inherited by him but fraudulently, sale deed was obtained

¶11

but they do not dispute this fact that on the sale deed, it is mentioned that appellant verified the contents of the alleged sale deed, therefore, his number was also mentioned in the same and no any document was found which was prepared by the appellant. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that appellant only verified the contents of alleged sale deed, therefore, his mobile number was mentioned in the same and no any documents was found which was prepared by the appellant, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Unnao in Bail Application No.2127 of 2023 is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶15

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under

¶18

Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if possible, within a period of one year.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 V. Sinha

¶21

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

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

Teepu Salmani @ Mohd. Sahbaan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 2 Others

Rajesh Dhuriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Sonu @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitish Yadav Alias Aman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Sameer @ Sameer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Tarzan Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) and Anr.