Allowed

Dheeraj Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/3910/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On 9.4.2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed a bail application filed by Dheeraj Saxena, the applicant. He was under trial in a case involving Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The court granted bail on a personal bond with two sureties and imposed specific conditions, including a deposit of Rs. 1,30,000.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail via personal bond with two sureties and a deposit of Rs. 1,30,000.

Dheeraj Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28746

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3910 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dheeraj Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anshuman Singh,Dr. Pooja Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondent and Shri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 09 of 2024, under Sections 420,467,468,471 I.P.C., Police Station Rewsa, District Sitapur, during trial.

¶9

It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant alleging therein that the incident is said to have occurred on 9.7.2022. It is alleged therein that in order to facilitate the grant of licence for installation of petrol pump, the applicant is said to have received money as illegal gratification from the complainant.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. The averments contained in the FIR are at variance with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 CrPC. It is further submitted that the statements of the alleged witnesses are also contrary to the statement of the complainant as well as the version contained in the FIR which causes doubt over the alleged occurrence.

¶11

It is further submitted that insofar as the alleged sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- which is said to have been transferred in the account of the applicant is concerned, the applicant in order to show his bonafide is ready to return the same to the complainant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 10.1.2024.

¶12

It is also urged that the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail, but could not refute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Dheeraj Saxena involved in the abovementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to be handed over to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of his release from jail.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶19

(iii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶21

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.

¶22

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 9.4.2024 Shravan

¶26

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

Dheeraj Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Saxena 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Vikaram @ Khuddi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Harivansh Kumar @ Harivansh Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Firoz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shivendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.