Allowed

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024/276/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court allowed the application subject to specific conditions regarding non-reoffending and court presence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions of not re-offending, not tampering with evidence, and appearing in trial court.

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15031

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 276 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Upendra Prakash Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the E.D.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 429 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant was also implicated in ten other cases of identical nature of offences. It is vehemently submitted that the only evidence available in the case diary against the applicant is that the applicant actively associated with the main accused persons. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is also submitted that co-accused, Dharmendra Singh @ Sonu, Kuldeep Yadav and Mukesh Kumar Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate benches of this Court vide orders dated 15.9.2023, 4.4.2023, 26.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.3086 of 2023, 4522 of 2023 and 7217 of 2023 respectively. It is lastly submitted that the trial is not going on and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 22.08.2023. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of

¶10

bail to the applicant, but does not dispute that the only allegation against the applicant is active association with the main accused persons and coaccused, Dharmendra Singh @ Sonu, Kuldeep Yadav and Mukesh Kumar Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate benches of this Court.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R., bail application as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Application stands allowed .

¶13

Let applicant - Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 429 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki, 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 an 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 ofÏce 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

¶18

proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If 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

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 Gaurav-Arpan/-

¶23

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

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sant Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ravi Shukla @ Dharmendra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Virendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Putan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satish Kumar Sharma @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Adarsh Dhuriya @ Adarsh Kahar @ Adesh Dhuriya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another