Allowed

Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024BAIL/11540/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant in a cheating case under Sections 409/420 IPC. Considering the nature of allegations, the fact that co-accused were granted bail, and lack of cognizable offence averment in the FIR, the release was granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, and complying with standard conditions.

Ashutosh Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75484

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11540 of 2024 Applicant :- Ashutosh Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ujjwal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ujjawal Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Virendra Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶5

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2022, under Sections 409/420 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶6

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 13.01.2022 against eight persons, including the applicant stating that the informant had made some investments in Massayar Infratech Pvt. Ltd. under an allurement that he would be transferred some plot of land or a lucrative return but later on he came to know that all the directors of the company have been taken into custody.

¶7

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was in relationship with the company's Director co-accused Ratan Chandra Dwivedi and he has wrongly been made merely a paper director of the company. The applicant's involvement in 30 other cases of similar nature has been disclosed in para 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶8

It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused Jainuddin Ansari who was also a Director of in the

¶9

Company and who is involved in 53 cases of similar nature, has been granted bail in the present case by means of an order dated 03.10.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5571 of 2023

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. merely alleges that the applicant has made some investments in the company and besides stating that the Directors of the company have been taken into custody there is no averment in the F.I.R. which may make out commission of any cognizable offence and that a similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2023 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant-Ashutosh Tripathi 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 following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Ram.

¶18

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

Ashutosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Tripathi 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

Avinash Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

M/S Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Lmt. Thru. Its Dir. Dhananjay Subramanium and 3 Others vs the Directorate of Enforcement (Ed) Deptt. of Revenue Thru. Direct. and 3 Others

Neeraj Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Mohammad Shahban vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Usman vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.