Allowed

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024BAIL/4080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for an accused in a police recruitment examination cheating FIR involving charges under the IPC, the U.P. Public Examinations Act and the Information Technology Act. Considering the allegations, punishment severity and period of incarceration, and no flight or tampering risk expressed by the AGA, the court released the applicant on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to stated conditions.

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29510

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4080 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Vatsa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J .

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 69 of 2024, under Section 420 I.P.C., Sections 4/10 of the U.P. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was the candidate who had to appear for the examination conducted by the U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board. It is not the case that the applicant was impersonating any person or was part of any solver gang. It is urged that the version as contained in the FIR is quite improbable as it has been lodged only to falsely implicate the applicant.

¶9

It is further submitted that during the examination, the applicant was allegedly found copying through written chits which had answers in respect of question paper. It is urged that unnecessarily, the provision of the Information Technology Act has been invoked in the impugned FIR, whereas it is not the case that the applicant was found having any electronic device. Moreover, the alleged chit of paper was not verified whether it contained the handwriting of the applicant. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that no alleged offence is made out against the applicant and despite the same, the applicant has been in jail since 21.02.2024. It is further urged that the applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit.

¶10

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the

¶11

witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is also seeking parity with the co-accused namely Satya Aman Kumar who has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by means of the order dated 05.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3812 of 2024, copy of the aforesaid bail application has been provided to the Court for perusal which is taken on record.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of the material available with him in shape of case diary has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶20

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.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

O rder Date :- 12.4.2024 Asheesh

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Neeraj Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Singh @ Ankur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Chandra Bhushan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jalaluddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ankit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others