Dismissed

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/3509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second regular bail application in a cheating and forgery case arising from FIR No.369 of 2019 at Police Station Fatehpur, Barabanki. The applicant's first application was rejected after a police inquiry showed he had misled the Court with a false marriage card. The Court again refused bail and directed expeditious conclusion of trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1773

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3509 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjay Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan,Sushil Kumar Dwivedi

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

This is the second bail application of the applicant as the first one was rejected by this Court on 23.01.2023.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶10

The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime/FIR No.369 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Fatehpur, District-Barabanki, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 15.07.2022. He further submitted that till today, not even a single witness has been examined before the trial court. He further submitted that the applicant was implicated in five other cases and in most of the cases, charge sheet has not been filed. He further submitted that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, in these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail and submitted that first bail application no.10937/2022 was filed by the applicant by making incorrect facts before this Court with the application that the marriage of the daughter of the applicant was scheduled on 25.01.2023 and one card was also placed on 20.01.2023 before this Court and under the direction of this Court, instructions were sought from the concerned police station as to whether the marriage of daughter of the applicant was scheduled on the date mentioned before this Court and it was found that children of applicant are minor and no marriage was scheduled on 25.01.2023. He

¶13

further submitted that due to conduct of applicant and deponent, bail application of the applicant was rejected. He further submitted that applicant with the association of other coaccused persons also took away paddy of 280 quintal therefore, he is no entitled for bail.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents as well as totality of fact and circumstances, and the first bail rejection order, in which, the conduct of the applicant was deprecated is quoted as under:

¶15

"As the case was taken up at 3:00 P.M., but no one was present on behalf of the applicant and Bench Secretary was directed to inform to Shri Durgesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant that the case was taken up at 4:00 P.M. Again, case was taken up at 4:10 P.M. and Bench Secretary informed that information was given to Shri Durgesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and he informed that he has given NOC to the applicant.

¶16

Heard learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶17

The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime/FIR No.369 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Fatehpur, DistrictBarabanki, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶18

The preset case was listed on 20.01.2023 in the cause list and Shri Durgesh Mishra, Advocate, Enrollment No.5375/09, A.O.R. No.B/D-0669, placed marriage card before the Court and submitted that marriage of the daughter of applicant is scheduled on 25.01.2023 (marriage card was taken on record). Thereafter, learned A.G.A. was instructed to seek instructions from the concerned Police Station that whether the marriage of daughter of applicant is scheduled on 25.01.2023 or not.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. informs that the order dated 20.01.2023 was communicated to concerned Police Station and Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Senior, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki is present in Court along with written instructions and informs that children of the applicant are minor and they are not at the marriageable age and no marriage in the house of applicant is scheduled on 25.01.2023 and certificate issued by Mr. Ramesh Yaduveer Yadav (Gram Pradhan) is also placed. He also informs that applicant is having criminal history of four cases i.e. Case Crime No.329 of 2019, under Sections 323, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur, Case Crime No.262 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur, Case Crime No.529 of 2014, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur and Case Crime No.239 of 2012, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur.

¶20

Considering the aforementioned facts as well as written instructions placed by Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Senior Sub-Inspector, as it is evident that learned counsel for the applicant tried to mislead the Court by placing invitation card on 20.01.2023 and in the Police Inquiry, it was

¶21

found that no marriage of the daughter of the applicant is scheduled on 25.01.2023 as all the children of applicant are minor, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

¶23

Officer present today need not to appear until further order. "

¶24

In view of the above facts and circumstances, applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

¶26

Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶27

Office is directed to communicate this order to C.J.M., Barabanki for necessary compliance.

¶28

Order Date :- 8.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶29

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

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanjay Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishhak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Ajeet Kumar vs the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda

Vikki Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Nithuri Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Suchendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another