Allowed

Ram Pratap @ Badakku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC2 May 2024/4697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 406 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant, a simple introducer between buyer and seller, allowing him to furnish a personal bond with sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each.

Ram Pratap @ Badakku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34093

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4697 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Pratap @ Badakku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.0100/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant as per the version contained in the FIR, it clearly indicates a civil transaction regarding sale and purchase of the property which is gone sour.

¶10

It is stated that as per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that the applicant had introduced the complainant to the other co-accused Ashok Singh, who held out to be the owner of the shop in question.

¶11

It is also urged that the transaction for the sale of the shop was finalized for a consideration of Rs.10.00 lakhs and thereafter paying the amount to the co-accused Ashok Singh, a sale-deed was got executed on 19.05.2022 in favour of the complainant, however, the complainant was unable to get the possession of the said shop and has been duped by the co-accused Ashok Singh.

¶12

The submission is that insofar as the present applicant is concerned, his role is only confined to introducing the purchaser and the seller. Neither, the applicant is the marginal witness of the sale-deed nor there is any transaction regarding money coming into the hands/account of the applicant. The applicant does not have any criminal history and he is

¶13

languishing in jail since 18.01.2024.

¶14

It is further stated that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts including insofar as the statements of the other witnesses are concerned, all have point towards the complicity of the co-accused and the role of the applicant is confined only to introducing the seller and the purchaser.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as 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.

¶17

Let the applicant Ram Pratap @ Badakku involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0100/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 406 IPC, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi 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.

¶18

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶19

(i) 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.

¶20

(ii) 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.

¶21

(iii) 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

¶22

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

(iv) 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 :- 2.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Pratap @ Badakku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap @ Badakku 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dhanjay Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India Thru. Deputy Commissioner (P) Air Custom C.C.S.I. Airport Lko.

Hosala Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shailendra Pratap Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sahil Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others