Allowed

Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024BAIL/342/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 66C, 66D of the IT Act, 2008, this Court granted bail to the applicant relying on the principle of parity with a co-accused already released by a coordinate bench, noting differences in the accused's specific role.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Rohit was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Rohit vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13682

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 342 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rohit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Prasad,Neelima Jaiswal,Shailendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Surendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the accused/applicant, Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Rohit for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 019/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC & 66C & 66 D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime, Police Station -Ayodhya, District C.C.H.O. Ayodhya, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicant was not named in the FIR and his complicity has surfaced in the alleged crime in the statement of co-accused Sachin Bansal, Amit Kardam and one Abubakr, however, all these three persons are themselves accused persons and their confessional statements have been recorded when they were in the custody of police and therefore the confessional statement of co-accused could not be proved against them.

¶9

It is further submitted that admittedly the applicant was not involved in defrauding the informant and other victim as the said role has been assigned to co-accused Sachin Bansal and Amit Kardam and the role of alleged withdrawal of defrauded money has been attributed to the instant applicant and other coaccused persons and Sachin Bansal who is one of the accused in fact has defrauded the informant and victim, has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order 2.1.20224 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 15177 of 2023. The applicant is in jail in this case since 5.10.2023. Charge sheet in

¶10

this case has already been submitted. Criminal history of one has been explained in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant / informant ;submits that in fact it was the instant applicant -Rohit who had lured co-accused Abubakar to open various bank accounts so that the defrauded money may be kept in such bank accounts and may be withdrawn at an appropriate time and thus the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is not in dispute that co-accused Sachin Bansal has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Coordinate Bench while enlarging the co-accused Sachin Bansal on bail has opined that the role of co-accused Sachin Bansal is distinguishable from the role of co-accused Rohit (applicant). Perusal of the record would sufficiently demonstrate that the act of defrauding the informant and other victim has been attributed to the co-accused Sachin Bansal and Amit Kardam and it has come in the confessional statement of co-accused Abubakr that the instant applicant - Rohit had asked him to open various accounts by using his mobile phone and sim cards. Thus the role of defrauding the victim and informant has been assigned to co-accused persons Sachin Bansal and Amit Kardam and the role of the instant applicant and other coaccused persons is subsequent to such allurement and defraudment. The applicant is in jail in this case since 05.10.2023. His criminal history of one case has been explained.

¶14

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court the role of the instant applicant is on identical footing as of Sachin Bansal and on the principle of parity, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Rohit involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.2.2024 Muk

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

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

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Dinesh Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Hashim @ Baggha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Dist. Lko

Ravi Pratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rasool Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another