Allowed

Brajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC14 May 2024BAIL/165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed a bail application filed under Section419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B I.P.C. The court granted bail based on the ground of parity with co-accused persons in the underlying case involving an imposter sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to non-tampering with evidence and appearing for trial.

Brajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40872

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 165 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Nand Kishore Patel,Anuj Kumar Verma,Sachida Nand,Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vaibhav Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 257 of 2023, under Section419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 02.05.2023 against five persons, including the applicant, stating that the other named persons had shown a land to the informant and a sale deed in respect thereof was executed by the applicant in favour of the informant. Later on, it turned out that the applicant was an imposter.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶10

The sale consideration was transferred to the applicant's bank account but the same was again transferred to the bank account of co-accused Ram Singh on the following day.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all

¶12

the co-accused persons, including Ram Singh, whose bank account the sale consideration was transferred have been granted bail in the present case.

¶13

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

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Brajesh Kumar 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 the following conditions: -

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. 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

Shyamu Alias Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ram Harish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 6 Others

Syed Mohammad Taj Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

M/S Aravali Infra Developers,Bahraich Thru. Proprietor Farhan Shavez Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Finance, Lko. and 2 Others