Allowed

Raghavram Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024ABAIL/2370/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted interim anticipatory bail to three applicants facing charges of cheating and forgery under IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471. Bail was subject to furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each.

What did the court decide?

Granted interim anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount.

Raghavram Pandey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2370 of 2024 Applicant :- Raghavram Pandey And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶2

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

¶3

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0186 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶4

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant nos.2 and 3 are sons of co-accused Ram Gopal and as per the allegation of the prosecution, Ram Gopal has produced some forged document before the Tehsildar (Judicial), Balrampur while claiming mutation in his favour including applicant no.1. He further submits that criminal liability cannot be fastened unless there is direct evidence of involvement or mens rea in committing such offence.

¶5

He submits that record reveals that no mutation of the land in question has ever been done in the name of applicant nos. 2 and 3 and main allegation is against Ram Gopal Mishra who allegedly has submitted the forged death certificate dated 15.2.2024. He argued that the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are not the beneficiary and so far the applicant no.1 is concerned being brother of Ram Gopal Mishra, the property was also mutated in his favour though no offence has ever been committed by him. He added that the charge sheet has been filed and a case criminal history of the applicant no.1 has been explained. Further submitted that the applicants undertake that they will co-operate with the investigating proceedings and they will remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required. He also submits that the applicants are law abiding citizens and they have acute apprehension of being arrested by the police, as such, they may be granted anticipatory bail which they will not misuse.

¶6

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State

¶7

has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicants are named in the F.I.R. and there is sufficient proof that he has committed cheat and fraud, as such, they are not entitled to any relief.

¶8

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Till the next date of listing, the present applicants Raghavram Pandey, Hanuman Prasad Pandey and Rajendra Prasad shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶11

(ii) that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶12

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶13

(iv) that in case charge sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶14

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶15

(vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶16

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

List/put up this matter in week commencing 13.1.2025 as fresh.

¶18

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.11.2024/Ram Murti

¶20

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

Raghavram Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavram Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gokul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Moolchand Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Puneet Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Angad Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raj Mishra @ Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another