Allowed

Ramjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024/456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an anticipatory bail application filed by Ramjan in a case involving alleged cheating and forgery related to land mutation. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the lack of challenge to the mutation order, and prior bail granted to a co-accused as grounds for relief.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was allowed. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two solvent sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21841

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 456 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramjan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Mishra,Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vivek Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.194 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Baundi, District Bahraich.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 16.06.2023 against the applicant and one Khadim Rasool on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that the informant' father died on 24.03.2008 but during his life time, wrongly showing him to have died in the year 1997, the accused persons filed an application for mutation in the court of Consolidation Officer got their names mutated in respect of the land belonging to the informant's father, on the basis of heir-ship. The FIR states that informant came to know about this fact on 20.05.2022 on the basis of information given by some villagers.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bailapplication, it has been contended that the applicant is 64 years old innocent person, and he has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that co-accused Khadim Rasool has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court by means of an order dated 01.11.2023, in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application No.2441 of 2023.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that mutation order in question was passed on 05.05.1999; that the informant claims to have got knowledge about the order on 20.05.2022; no proceedings have been initiated by the informant challenging the validity of the mutation order and the applicant continues to be a recorded tenure holder of the land in question without any challenged till date and the FIR has been lodged on 16.06.2023 and there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, whereas a co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Ramjan before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, 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

¶14

conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts ofthe 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) hat the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Ram.

¶22

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

Ramjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Ram Bilas Alias Mithun Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Civil Sedcret. Lko. and Another

Aniruddh Singh Thru. His Son Bhupendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Law, Sectt. Lucknow and 2 Others

Ashish Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Abdul Raees Alias Danish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Virendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others