Allowed

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024BAIL/2962/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by Anil Kumar Singh seeking bail in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery. The High Court allowed bail citing parity with a co-accused and the magistrate-triable nature of offences, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80963

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2962 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Pratap Singh,Brijesh Kumar Singh,Raghvendra Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dadu Ram Shukla (In Person)

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Dadu Ram Shukla, complainant present in person as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 23 of 2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 386, 506 IPC and Section 7A of PC Act, Police Station SIT, District Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that main accused/ coaccused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8545 of 2023. Applicant is alleged to be the accomplish of Brijesh Kumar Awasthi. It is further submitted that there is no material with the prosecution to implicate the applicant in this case. Applicant has explained the criminal history in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit. He submits that role assigned to the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi. Applicant seeks parity. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.09.2023.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as complainant present in person have

¶11

opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

An objection has been raised by learned A.G.A. submitting that in the case of co-accused Brijesh kuamr Awasthi a condition has been imposed by the court vide order dated 24.10.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11055 of 2024 that he will not visit any office of the District Courts, any office of the Sub-Registrar or any office of the Tehsildar.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

A perusal of the bail order of co-accused Brijesh kumar Awasthi dated 07.07.2023 shows that this Court while allowing the bail of Brijesh Kumar Awasthi in para 5 has taken note of the fact that after the submission of the police report further investigation has been ordered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2023, applicant has explained the criminal history, offences are triable by magistrate so also the observation made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Brijesh Kumar Awasthi (supra), without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Anil Kumar Singh be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not visit any office of the District Courts, any office of the Sub-Registrar or any office of the Tehsildar.

¶19

(ii)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(v) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(vi) The applicant 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.

¶24

(vii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shatrohan @ Shatrughan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Pankaj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.