Allowed

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

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2024BAIL/2351/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for an applicant accused of impersonating a co-accused in the Preliminary Eligibility Test, 2023 under IPC sections 419-471 and U.P. Sarvjanik Pariksha Adhiniyam. Investigation concluded with charge sheet filed; bail granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to three stated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34278

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2351 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raushan Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dwivedi,Pradeep Singh Somvanshi,Shivangi Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Pradeep Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.612 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 6/10 of U.P. Sarvjanik Pariksha Adhiniyam, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 29.10.2023 against the applicant and one Avinash Kumar stating that in the Preliminary Eligibility Test, 2023, the applicant had appeared in place of co-accused Avinash Kumar.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.10.2023.

¶11

The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and on the basis of instructions he has submitted that a charge sheet has already been submitted on 25.12.2023.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the investigation of the case already stands concluded and there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant; that the applicant is a young man having no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 29.10.2023 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-Raushan 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 following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Ram.

¶20

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Amethi and 6 Others

Shitla Prasad Mishra and 16 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Amethi and 6 Others

Pradeep Kumar Pandey and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 9 Others