Allowed

Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC3 May 2024/7221/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the accused in an impersonation and forgery case relating to an agreement to sell land. Offences triable by magistrate; consideration allegedly not received by applicant. Bail allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, non-cooperation and criminal activity.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34602

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7221 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arshad Siddiqui,Anand Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Kallu for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.261 of 2022, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Haidergarh, District Barabanki, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶9

It is further submitted that allegations against the applicant are to the tune that he after impersonating the real owner of the property/land has executed an agreement to sell in favour of the informant and consideration of Rs.6 lakhs were received by one Ram Naresh. It is vehemently submitted that the applicant being a rustic villager is not aware of the modalities and formalities related to the registry and even if the case of the prosecution as summarized by the investigating officer in the case diary while submitting charge sheet is believed as it is, it will emerge that agreement to sell, which was executed earlier, has been cancelled with the consent of the parties and the amount of consideration has also been paid back to the informant, however, the same has not been admitted to the informant, while the investigating officer is of the opinion that the said amount of consideration has been received by the informant.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that since the matter was pertaining to the execution of an agreement to sell and no right has been transferred thereby to anyone, it is not a case of wrongful loss and wrongful gain, moreover the money had admittedly not been received by the

¶11

applicant as the same was given to Ram Naresh and stated to have been received from him. It is further submitted that the alleged offences against the applicant are triable by magistrate.

¶12

It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused persons of the alleged crime, namely, Santosh Kumar and Manoj have been released on bail by this Court, vide orders dated 31.01.2024 and 02.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10065 of 2023 and 1754 of 2024, respectively. It is also submitted that provisions of Gangsters Act have also been invoked against the applicant on the basis of the instant case and bail application in that case could only be moved after procuring bail in the instant case.

¶13

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 14.03.2023 and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but could not controvert the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Considering the fact that the alleged offences against the applicant are triable by magistrate and he is in jail in this case on 14.03.2023, charge sheet has already been submitted and the matter was pertaining to the execution of an agreement to sell and the consideration had admittedly not been received by the applicant, which is shown to have been given to one Ram Naresh, who is shown to have paid back the same to the informant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶16

Let the accused/applicant- Kallu involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Anupam S/-

¶24

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

Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu 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

Mohammad Ashhad Vs State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Puran Lal Vs Union of India Thru. N.C.B Lko

Shaukat Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Om Prakash Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home and Another

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

Shan Mohammad @ Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.