Allowed

Satish Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024/465/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court allowed the bail plea of Satish Kumar Tripathi accused of forgery and cheating. The Court found it to be a fit case for release given the Supreme Court stay of proceedings, the magistrate-triable nature of offences, and the period of incarceration, despite opposition regarding the applicant being a habitual offender.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Satish Kumar Tripathi was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in an amount satisfactory to the trial court, subject to specified conditions.

Satish Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45206

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 465 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satish Kumar Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Surendra Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accusedapplicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.100 of 2015, under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 I.P.C., P.S. Kunda, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.7611/2014, the impugned first information report was registered regarding the forgery committed in Case No.301/2000 (Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singh) pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kunda where allegedly the forged file was prepared along with order dated 15.05.2001 and consequently, mutation order dated 08.05.2012 was also prepared.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after the F.I.R., investigation was carried out and a final report was filed by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, one Kamlesh Kumar Singh though not informant had filed a protest petition without any locus which was rejected vide order dated 01.07.2017 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, the

¶11

cognizance was taken and non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicant and other co-accused persons accordingly.

¶12

Against the order dated 01.07.2017, the co-accused Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna and others have filed criminal revision bearing No.171/2017 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Pratapgarh, the Revisional Court vide order dated 02.06.2018 has set aside the order dated 01.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration.

¶13

Against the order dated 02.06.2018 Kamlesh Kumar Singh filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No.2139/2019 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2023.

¶14

After remand of the case, it was heard by the concerned court and vide order dated 18.08.2022 final report was rejected and learned trial court took cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons. After coming to know the summoning order, applicant filed a Criminal Revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh which is pending. The other coaccused Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna filed criminal revision before the Special Judge which was rejected on 12.05.2023 and subsequently, the same was challenged before this Court vide Application U/S 482 No.5520/2023 which was dismissed by this court vide order dated 21.08.2023.

¶15

Against this order dated 21.08.2023, SLP (crl.) was filed bearing No.14723/2023 (Arun Kumar Singh @ Munna & others vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein the Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.61/2015, P.S. Kunda, District Pratapgarh.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while the applicant was in jail since 04.07.2023 in connection with Case

¶17

Crime No.444/2022, under Section 409 IPC, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, he was taken into custody in the present case and he is languishing in jail since 20.07.2023. He submits that the applicant has been granted bail in the earlier Case Crime No.444/2022 however, in this case he is languishing in jail since 20.07.2023.

¶18

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that applicant is a government servant. No sanction has been obtained under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The proceedings of trial have been stayed by the Supreme Court in pending SLP (crl.). The applicant cannot be kept behind the bars for unlimited period.

¶19

It is lastly submitted that there is a family dispute between the co-accused and Kamlesh Kumar Singh. Applicant is not concerned in any manner nor he is beneficiary, and has also not prepared any forged document. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Offences are triable by magistrate.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer however, learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact that proceedings are stayed. He submits that applicant is a habitual offender and there is one more F.I.R. lodged against the applicant and therefore, he should not be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the order dated 28.11.2023 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.14723 of 2023, period of incarceration gone into by the applicant and the fact that offences are triable by magistrate, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the applicant Satish Kumar Tripathi be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a

¶24

personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶25

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶26

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶27

(iii) 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.

¶28

(iv) 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.

¶29

(v) 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.

¶30

(vi) 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.

¶31

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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 Lutawan Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gufran Ahmad Vs Stateof U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar @ Raja Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Sadda @ Bhallu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Chhituram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Satish Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.