Allowed

Dharmendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 May 2024/4852/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the applicant, a director accused of financial fraud, should be released on bail as co-accused directors were granted bail, he has prior bail in similar cases, and he has been in detention since April 2021 without impacting case merits. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

Dharmendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35297

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4852 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, the learned State Counsel.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 842 of 2020, under Section 420, 409, 504 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 27.10.2020 against three persons including the applicant, alleging that the informant had invested some amount in Massaiar Group of Company under allurement of lucrative return but only some amount was paid to the informant and the rest amount was not paid.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he used to work as the Marketing Head in the Company.

¶11

The applicant's criminal history of 52 cases has been disclosed, in para 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has been stated in the affidavit that the applicant has already been granted bail in ten cases. A co-accused

¶12

Abhinav Kumar Singh, Ratan Chand Dwivedi, Jainuddin Ansari, who were the Directors of the Company, have been granted bail by means of orders dated 25.09.2023, 31.07.2023 and 22.08.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11524 of 2023, 13361 of 2023 & 10495 of 2023.

¶13

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

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although the applicant is named in the F.I.R for the reason that he is a director of the company; that the applicant has already been granted bail in ten other cases of similar nature, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2021 and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Dharmendra Prajapati be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Pradeep/-

¶21

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

Dharmendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Prajapati 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

Dharam Raj Vs Distt. Registrar Gonda

Susheel Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 8 Others

Smt. Sarita Devi Vs Central Bank of India Branch @348 Srinagar Hat Ayodhya and Anr.

M/S G F T Fashion ,Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Gulsher Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Majid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Ram Naresh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others