Allowed

Sukesh Rajan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2024BAIL/11146/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench allowed a bail application for an applicant charged with cheating and fraud. The court found no cogent evidence against him, noting potential false implication due to a land dispute, and granted bail subject to conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Candidate released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attending trial dates and not tampering with evidence.

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81854

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11146 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sukesh Rajan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhup Chandra Singh,Ravi Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0373 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. He next added that the police without collecting cogent piece of evidence has filed chargesheet, though the applicant was not involved in committing any offence and the matter pertains to civil in nature. He has shown other falsity in the prosecution story and submits that in fact there is a dispute with respect to some land in between the applicant and the informant and the informant with a view to mount pressure over the applicant has named the applicant while alleging that he has committed cheat and fraud with him. He also submits that since the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant will tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He next submits that the applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 20 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 04.11.2023 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant has committed cheat and fraud and as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant; the applicant has been falsely implicated due to some dispute of land in between him and the informant; the chargesheet has been filed in the matter,

¶11

therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or threaten the witnesses; applicant has explained the criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 04.11.2023 and he has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Sukesh Rajan 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.12.2024 kkv/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sukesh Rajan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukesh Rajan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

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

Javed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Premkala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pirn. Secy. Home Lko.

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

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

Satish Chandra @ Chhotey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Khilawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.