Allowed

Tillu @ Sateesh Nai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2024/4006/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 IPC, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, considering him a fit case. The court imposed conditions regarding witness safety, appearance in court, and clarified that the order did not reflect on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties on conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

Tillu @ Sateesh Nai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52377

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4006 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Tillu @ Sateesh Nai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kumar,Jatin Gajwani,Parvez Ahmad Siddiqui,Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Counter AfÏdavit filed by learned A.G.A. on behalf of State, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0332 of 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC, P.S.- Purva, District -Unnao.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that the statement of complainant is evident that the applicant has been made an escape-goat and he was not involved in committing any offence. The beneficiary is one, Ram Ratan, who is purchaser. No sale consideration is paid to the applicant. He further submits that the chargesheet has been filed by the Investigating OfÏcer and therefore, there is no possibility of fleeing away of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 22 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 1709-2023. He next added that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in

¶11

committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17-09-2023; chargesheet has been filed in the case; there seems no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future and the statement of the complainant namely Roop Kumar, prima-facie demolishes the story of the prosecution so far as the role of the applicant is concerned coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Tillu @ Sateesh Nai involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He 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 proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 31.7.2024 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tillu @ Sateesh Nai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tillu @ Sateesh Nai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

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

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Gulshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shanti Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 3 Others

Tillu @ Sateesh Nai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Shobhit Pathak vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.