Allowed

Santoshi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC30 May 2024/2748/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused in a cheating and forgery FIR, opposed on grounds of criminal history and inconsistent disclosed ages. The court held that even if his stated age of 86 was slightly overstated, he remains a senior citizen entitled to bail solely on that basis, and granted regular bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Santoshi released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, with conditions to attend hearings, not commit similar offences, and not tamper with evid

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41511

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2748 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Santoshi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla )

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dadu Ram Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The applicant seeks enlargement the on bail in FIR No.148 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in terms of the police report which is on record, the tentative age of the applicant is around 86 years, as such he argued that in a similar case, solely on the ground of age, the applicant was enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.5.2024. Hence, the applicant who is languishing in jail since 19.4.2023 having criminal history which is duly explained in paragraph 12 of the bail application, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the prayer for bail by arguing that the applicant has indulged himself in un-organised crime and has duped various persons.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent complainant raised serious raised objection with regard to the age of the applicant and states that even as per the documents, somewhere the applicant has disclosed his age as 70 years, somewhere is age as 90 years and at some place, he has disclosed his age as 80 years, thus the

¶12

averment made by the applicant is incorrect statement which should be verified, hence the prayer for bail should be rejected.

¶13

Although the court had granted bail to the present applicant solely on the ground of his age as 86 years, there was no finding with regard to the actual age of the applicant.

¶14

Be that as it may, even if the age of the applicant is slightly less than that, being a senior citizen, the applicant is entitled to bail solely on the ground of age and nothing else.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Santoshi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(c) 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 Shukla

¶21

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

Santoshi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santoshi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

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

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Sameer Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Ashok Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Kanhaiya Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Harikesh Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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