Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC7 May 2024/717/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J., rejected the anticipatory bail application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Kim Yadav. The court held that incriminating documents were found to be fraudulent and the applicant had no genuine reason to secure admission, thus lacking inclination to entertain the plea.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Applicant may seek regular bail separately.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35403

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 717 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kim Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

The instant application has been preferred by the applicant Kim Yadav, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.461 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, relating to police station Wajeerganj, District Gonda.

¶9

As per the allegations contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant and his son Harsh Vikar Singh were assured that the applicant and the other co-accused who were operating an institute under the name and style of 'Knowing Education Centre' would get Harsh Vikram Singh admitted in a medical college. The applicant and the other co-accused Sayeed Ahmad Siddqui who held out to be the director and head councilor had charged rupees 12.5 lakhs for getting the son of the complainant admitted in Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiyana.

¶10

The complainant and his son from time to time had deposited the amount in the account of the applicant and also in the account of the other coaccused. Some money was also paid in cash to the other co-accused. It was alleged that the applicant and the other co-accused had taken the complainant and his son to Ludhiyana for getting him admitted and also gave him fraudulent

¶11

documents and receipts. The son of the complainant was made to stay in a hotel in Ludhiyana but despite the same the admission could not be secured and the son of the complainant returned. When the applicant and the other co-accused were contacted for returning the fund, they threatened the complainant and in the aforesaid backdrop, the FIR was lodged.

¶12

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was never any intention to defraud the complainant or his son. In so far as the money received in the account of the complainant is concerned, the same was returned. Moreover, the applicant is suffering a very uncommon disease and had she not suffered from the said disease. She could have managed to get the complainant son admitted in some college, thus the applicant did not have any fraudulent intention. The institute of the applicant is still functioning and the applicant is ready to cooperate in any investigation and in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant who is facing threat of arrest has approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1739 of 2024. However, the Division Bench of this Court did not find favour and dismissed the petition. It is also stated that apart from the instant case there is no criminal history and as such the amount which was paid by the complainant to the present applicant was returned prior to lodging of the FIR. In the aforesaid circumstances, the interim protection be granted.

¶14

Learned AGA and the counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail . It is further urged that upon investigation it has revealed that the applicant and the other coaccused had taken money from the complainant and promised admission in some medical college in Ludhiyana.

¶15

In investigation, it further revealed that the provisional allotment letter given by the applicant and the other co-accused to the complainant and

¶16

his son, upon verification were found to be fraudulent. It is thus submitted that the allegations in the FIR were, prima facie , found to be true and in the aforesaid circumstances admittedly the money was transferred to the account of the applicant as such the application for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.

¶17

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶18

Apparently, there is no dispute for denial of the fact that the applicant had taken money in her account. There does not appear to be any reason as to how the applicant would secure admission for the son of the complainant. Certain incriminating documents relating to provisional allotment letter, receipts evidencing the payment of hostel fee etc. upon verification were found to be fraudulent. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the plea of anticipatory bail which is accordingly rejected.

¶19

However, leaving it open for the applicant to seek regular bail and in case if such an application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 .

¶20

Order Date :- 7.5.2024 ank

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kim Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Yadav Pradhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Bablu Jaiswal @ Santosh @ Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Home and 3 Others

Islamuddin @ Chotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aizaz Khan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.