Allowed

Ravendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Department of Home and Another

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2024/354/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of Ravendra Kumar, charged in a cheating case alleging misrepresentation of employment services. The court observed the informant's potential involvement, the applicant's clean record, and the grant of bail to co-accused, finding the applicant entitled to relief.

What did the court decide?

Applicant allowed anticipatory bail upon furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of appearing before the trial court and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30191

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 354 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Ravendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Department Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suyesh Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Uma Kant

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Suyesh Pradhan, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 291 of 2021, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 06.11.2021 against three persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant is a doctor working in a nursing institute on the post of Professor Nursing. The applicant was known to him since the year 2011 and in the year 2019, he told the informant that he was running a placement agency, through which several persons got employed in government service. The informant paid a total of Rs. 67 lakh for getting his brother, nephew and wife employed and several other persons paid money for getting employed through the informant. The FIR further states that when the persons could not get employment, the informant had signed promissory notes for refund of money.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that he has no criminal history.

¶10

Co-accused Anshuman Srivastava has been granted anticipatory bail in the present case by means of an order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2210 of 2023. Arrest of the other coaccused Mamta Devi has been stayed by means of an order dated 27.11.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 27692 (M/B) of 2021.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that from the FIR allegations itself it appears that the informant himself was involved in extraction of money from people in the name of getting them employed and he has lodged an FIR after failing in this endeavour; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and that two co-accused persons, against whom similar allegations have been levelled, have already been granted anticipatory bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in the present case.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Ravendra Kumar before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶13

(i) that the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) that 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;

¶15

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶16

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶17

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.4.2024 Vipul

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Department of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Department of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Komal Shahi vs Ankur Jaiswal

Ravindranath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Suchita and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home,Lucknow and Another

Collector Kheri Vs the Additional Commissioner Administration Lucknow and 8 Ors.

Ekadashi Nishad Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home