Allowed

Ram Bachan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024/7008/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/409 IPC. The court found it to be a fit case for bail considering the applicant's innocence claims, lack of criminal history, and the length of trial, subjecting him to specific court conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to undertakings regarding cooperation in trial and non-tampering with witnesses.

Ram Bachan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70369

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7008 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Bachan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogendra Nath Yadav,Arvind Kumar Tiwari,Sayyed Farooq Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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. 331 of 2022, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/409 IPC, Police Station Bhinga, District Shravasti.

¶8

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 submits that the Investigating Officer without collecting any cogent piece of evidence has filed the charagesheet, however he was not involved in committing any offence. He further added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and prior to arrest, he was working as an Assistant Teacher. He added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.01.2023 and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. He added that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant has committed cheat and fraud and there are serious allegations against him and as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 26.01.2023 and it seems that there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and further the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties,

¶12

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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Ram Bachan Yadav 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 kkv/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Bachan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bachan Yadav 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

Similar cases

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Asha Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. S.I.T. Lko

Vandana Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Mohammad Kayoom Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home and Another