Allowed

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024BAIL/5640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for an applicant implicated in offences relating to a fraudulent sale deed; court found his role distinguishable from co-accused, no criminal history, and released him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including non-tampering and trial attendance.

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78397

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5640 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Sharad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava,Atharva Arya,Hem Chandra Joshi,Shri Kishan Prajapati

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024, under Section 147, 452, 323, 392, 506, 419, 420, 467, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant is neither vendor nor vendee nor marginal witness of the sale deed in question. He argued that there is no documentary proof that any amount said to be misappropriated by committing cheat and fraud, has ever been credited into the account of the applicant. He submits that the role of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the other co-accused, namely, Raj Kumar and Mukesh Kumar. He also submits that there is no evidence against the applicant, thus, this matter will not lead to the punishment. He added that denial of bail cannot be on the ground of punitive action and the liberty of life is the paramount consideration of bail. He further submits that charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of his fleeing away from the investigation proceedings. Further submission is that there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 39 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.3.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is neither vendor nor vendee nor marginal witness of the sale deed in question; there is no documentary proof that any amount said to be misappropriated by committing cheat and fraud, has ever been credited into the account of the applicant; role of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the other co-accused, namely, Raj Kumar and Mukesh Kumar; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 39 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.3.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Ram Kishor Tiwari alias Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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

¶17

313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

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

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

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

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Putti Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ranjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sri Himanshu Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ram Sajiwan Alias Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Hari Alias Hari Ram and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Jayash Nath Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Lko. and Another