Allowed

Madan Nag v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024/8924/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the bail application of Madan Nag in a cheating and forgery case, noting he has been in remand since October 2022 and co-accused have been released, directing release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions regarding tampering and appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58630

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8924 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Madan Nag Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Upendra Prakash Pathak, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 988 of 2022, under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 17.09.2022 against 13 persons, including the applicant, by the informant, who introduce herself as a director of City Doors Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., alleging that she had purchased a piece of land from the applicant and similarly some other parts of land were purchased from two co-accused persons and thereafter the informant's company carved out plots in the land and sold the same to other persons. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the persons who had executed a sale deed in favour of the company were not owners of the land.

¶9

In the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

The applicant's involvement in fourteen other cases has been disclosed in para 11 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. In three cases, the applicant has been granted bail prior to filing of the instant bail application and in other remaining cases, he has not been summoned.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has pointed out the involvement of the applicant in two more cases and has filed supplementary counter afÏdavit stating that the applicant is a co-accused in those cases.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the coaccused Dharmendra Singh @ Sonu, Satish Sharma, @ Raju, Kuldeep and Mukesh Yadav have already been granted bail in the present case, and also that the applicant has already been granted bail three other cases,

¶13

coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.10.2022 and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufÏcient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Madan Nag 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: -

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 28.8.2024 DiVYa

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

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

Madan Nag v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Nag 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

Mohd. Rustam @ Rustam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Manau Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh and 9 Others

Rohit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Sadhna Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No. 16, Sultanpur and 7 Others

Shyam Kishor Shukla Vs Civil Judge (S.D)Lko and 2 Others

Save Housing Finance Ltd. Corp. New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer Mr. Brajendra Singh Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and Another