Allowed

Nityanand Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC7 May 2024BAIL/4508/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court released the applicant on bail in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case, relying on the principle of parity with a co-accused already granted bail and referencing Supreme Court precedents that pendency of cases alone cannot justify bail refusal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties under conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35282

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4508 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nityanand Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Singh,Mukteshwar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

The instant application is being heard through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Heard Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Aatreya Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 376 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station - Aliganj, District - Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Abhishek Rai, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3349 of 2022. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the coaccused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. No money was transferred to the account of the applicant in the instant case. It is further argued that in all two cases have been foisted on the applicant. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-

¶11

accused has not been disputed by him.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let the applicant- Nityanand Rai, involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶14

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

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

¶18

v. 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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

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

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in

¶22

forming his independent opinion on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Siddhant

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nityanand Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nityanand Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. 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

Guddan vs State of U.P.

Riyasat Ali @ Riyasat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjay Tiwari @ Sunny Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko

Kamlawti Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.