Allowed

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024ABAIL/2604/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to Ramesh Kumar Yadav in a cheating FIR. The court found him a fit case for bail, noting his innocence, cooperation, and lack of tampering risk, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on interim anticipatory bail on personal bond and two solvent sureties with standard conditions; matter listed for Week of 13.01.2025.

Ramesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2604 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2019, under sections 419,420,467,468 & 471 of the IPC, Police Station-Mankipur, DistrictPratapgarh.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that the applicant is the husband of Village Pradhan and the main allegation is against the Village Pradhan so far as the cheat and fraud is alleged to have been committed with the informant. She added that no criminal liability can be fastened upon the husband of the Village Pradhan and the informant while targeting the applicant, has also named him so as to involve him committing cheat and fraud. She also added that there is no evidence against the applicant to connect him in the matter and only on the basis of suspicion and being the husband of Village Pradhan, the applicant has been named. She next added that the chargesheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility that the applicant will tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses and there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest him and he is ready to cooperate in the trial

¶8

proceedings and therefore, submission is that the present applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is not the Village Pradhan, but, he is husband of the Village Pradhan and the first information report has been lodged after one year and he has been named, though he has cooperated in the investigation proceedings and chargesheet has been filed and the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of anticipatory bail and he will always cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail.

¶12

Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Ramesh Kumar Yadav, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise

¶15

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;

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

List/put up this matter in the week commencing 13.01.2025.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 AKS

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Shiv Kumar Rajbhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Azam Jaidi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Aakash Gupta @ Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Narayan Nai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kanhiya Lal Thru. Father Ram Dhani vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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