Allowed

Dharmendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024/9454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal bail application filed by Dharmendra Prajapati, who was charged under Sections 409 and 420 IPC. The applicant, languishing in jail since April 2021, submitted that co-accused had been granted bail. The High Court observed no possibility of flight or witness tampering and allowed bail on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses and evidence.

Dharmendra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60836

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9454 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It is alleged in the prosecution case that upon the assurance given by the applicant and the co-accused persons, the informant has invested Rs. 1,10,000/- in the company. The complainant was allured that he will be given twice the amount deposited within 36 months, however, when he contacted in the office of the company, he came to know that Rant Chandra Dwivedi and all the directors of the company have gone to jail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that managing director of the company Ratan Chandra Dwivedi, Jainudeen Ansari, Director of the company and Jai Prakash Prajapati, Senior Team Leader of the company, have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court, copy of which are on record as Annexure No. 2 collectively to the bail application.

¶9

It has been further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2021. He has explained his criminal history in of several cases of the like nature relating to the same incident in para 15 of the bail application.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that the offences are triable by magistrate; similarly situated co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the trial court; the applicant has explained his criminal history, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2021and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Dharmendra Prajapati, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 32/2022, under Sections 409/420 IPC, Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant 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

¶20

Code.

¶21

(vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 R.C.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Prajapati 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

Ramashankar @ Ramshankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Harendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Vishram Sagar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rachin Gupta vs CBI / Scb Lko.

Vivek Singh @ Laxman Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Brij Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy. (Irrigation and Water Resourses) and 3 Others