Allowed

Hareram Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024BAIL/2316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in an FIR alleging a forged sale deed of a deceased man's property. Applicant had no criminal history and co-accused had already been granted bail; the court allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to non-tampering, non-pressurising witnesses, and appearing on all trial dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27132

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2316 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hareram Shukla Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey,Osama Syed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Gupta,Naveen Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Riyaz Ahmad, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Naveen Mishra, the learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 431 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.08.2023 against five persons, including the applicant stating that the co-accused Surya Prakash Dixit is related to the informant and in connivance with his son Gaurav Dixit, by setting up the applicant, who is father in law of Gaurav Dixit, in place of the informant's deceased uncle Hariram, he got a sale deed of property of Hariram executed in favour of Urban Kumar on 19.04.2023. The co-accused persons Maiku and Raghvendra Yadav had witnessed the execution of the sale deed.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is an illiterate innocent person, he has

¶10

been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused persons Gaurav Dixit, Maiku, Surya Prakash Dixit and Urban Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶11

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

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 16.12.2023 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.

¶13

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant-Hareram Shukla 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:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (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.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 Ram.

¶18

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

Hareram Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareram Shukla 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

M/S Accel Frontline Ltd. Thru Sanjeev Agrawal Manager Accnt. Vs the Prescribed Authority Minimum Wages Act 1948 and Others

Kailash and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Chandra Bhushan Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ali Abbas Jafri Vs Ditectorate of Enforcement (Allahabad Sub Zonal Office) Allahabad

Hareram Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.