Ravi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:50664

Court No. - 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8013 of 2024

Applicant :- Ravi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey,Martand Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 8 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 34 I.P.C. & 66DI.T. Act Police Station Cyber Crime, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶8

Prosecution story is that the complainant received a call from 9727741346 through Whatsapp calling and was informed that whatever amount he would deposit through bet daily app link, he would get more money and, thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.1,66,399/- in different accounts but later on, it was found that same was fake and cheat and fraud has been committed.

¶9

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and once the police raided two places in Bharat City Tower at Ghaziabad, the applicant including other co-accused persons were arrested though nothing was recovered from their possession so as to connect them with the instant offence as only the mobile phones have been shown to be recovered as per the recovery memo. He next added that the present applicant has been connected only on the basis of the confessional statement of the main accused Himanshu @ Sainki and Saurabh @ Hani and except apart, there is no cogent piece of evidence against him. He also submitted that it is an admitted fact that the applicant was working as an employee on salary of Rs.18000/- and except apart, he has no concern with any kind of criminal activity as has been alleged to have been done by him. Further submitted that identically situated co-accused, namely, Anand Shukla has already been enlarged on bail in

¶10

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7707 of 2024.

¶11

Adding his arguments, he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the application and the applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 22.5.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that present applicant including other twenty co-accused persons were arrested by the police, on a raid in Bharat City Tower at Ghaziabad and from the statements of the co-accused persons, namely, Himanshu @ Sainki and Saurabh @ Hani, it is evident that the applicant was involved in committing the offence, thus, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant as is apparent from the recovery memo and the applicant has been connected only on account of the confessional statements of the co-accused Himanshu @ Sainki and Saurabh @ Hani; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.5.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail coupled with the fact that one of the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, namely, Anand Shukla in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7707 of 2024.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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 case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Ravi 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.7.2024 Anurag

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Viyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Rahul Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Suraj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

AKANkSHA Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Priyatam @ Pritam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs District Inspector of School and 2 Others