Allowed

Tulsi Gaur v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Homes Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC2 May 2024/2844/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Tulsi Gaur in Non-Bailable Offence under P.C. Act, considering trial court vacants and reasonable prospect of bail refusal by applicants first application.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh, two sureties in like amount, and specific conditions regarding conduct, evidence tampering, court attendance and obligation not to seek further

Tulsi Gaur Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Homes… — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34357

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2844 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Tulsi Gaur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Homes Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 337 of 2011 U/s 409, 120-B I.P.C. and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, Police Station- Hazratganj, DistrictLucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged on 21.06.2011. He further submits that the applicant was taken into custody on 29.09.2021, but he was enlarged on bail after taking personal bond, and thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted by Investigating Officer. He further submits that the competent court took cognizance and issued summons against the applicant, in that regard, he appeared before the competent court but bail was rejected. He further submits that applicant is in jail since 05.01.2022 and his first bail application was rejected on 25.01.2023 by this Court. It is further submitted that charge was framed against the applicant on 05.02.2024 and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is further submitted that applicant has been implicated in three other cases of identical nature. It is also submitted that the applicant is aged about 70 years, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. He submits that initially, the fact finding inquiry was conducted, thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged and after detailed investigation, sufficient evidence was found against the applicant, hence, he is not entitled for bail. He does not dispute the fact that applicant was not taken into custody during the

¶10

investigation.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of bail application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant enclosures; it is evident that first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 25.01.2023 and he is in jail since 05.01.2022, and the charge against him was framed on 05.02.2024. It is also evident from the report submitted by the trial court that the trial court was running vacant, and the charge against the applicant was framed by the link court. Thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶12

Hence, prima facie, case for bail is made out, at this stage.

¶13

Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Tulsi Gaur who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties each in the like amount subject to following conditions.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

(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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(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. (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 sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 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.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Arpan

¶22

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

Tulsi Gaur v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Homes Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Gaur v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Homes Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Urmila Gaur Vs Shri Manoj Agarwal, Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution DIVISION-1ST Pratapgarh

Narendra Kumar Vs Dinesh Kumar Rathor Posted as Dist. Inspector of SCHOOL-2 Lko.

Chandresh and Another Vs Sunil Kumar and Others

Rahul Dwivedi @ R.D. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anuj Kumar vs Mr. Ashish Shukla, Distt. Panchayat Raj Officer (Dpro) Sultanpur

Geeta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.