Allowed

Aditya Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024BAIL/5933/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in an F.I.R. alleging cheating, forgery and impersonation in a student admission counselling process. The court noted similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail and allowed bail on ground of parity, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to stated conduct and attendance conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51466

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5933 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aditya Singh Yadav

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Ishan Baghel,Nishchal Verma,Veena Vijayan Rajes

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 382 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶11

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 25.04.2024. It is further submitted that the applicant always cooperated in the investigation and his statement was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per prosecution case, the list of students for admission was prepared by the 10 Members Counselling Committee, which was headed by Special Secretary, Department of Ayush, U.P., Lucknow and, in case, any student was inducted in the said list, who was not qualified, it is the Members of the Committee, who are responsible for preparing the list. However, except the Director, Ayush Department, not even any other person has been charge sheeted. It is vehemently submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant for making any fabrication. It is next submitted that the co-accused, namely, Dr. Ritu Garg, Dharmendra Yadav and Dr. Vijay Yadav, have already

¶12

been enlarged on bail either by this Court or by Hon'ble Apex Court. The bail orders of the aforesaid co-accused persons are annexed as Annexure Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the bail application. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but fairly concedes that similarly situated co-accused Dr. Ritu Garg, Dharmendra Yadav and Dr. Vijay Yadav have already been granted bail.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., ground of parity with the coaccused and going through the material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. Application stands allowed on the ground of parity.

¶15

Let applicant -Himanshu Tripathi be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 382 of 2022 (supra), on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) 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 office or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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

¶19

in accordance with law.

¶20

(iv) 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 229A IPC.

¶21

(v) 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. may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶22

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 VKS

¶25

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

Aditya Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. 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

Masooq Ali @ Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sakir Ali @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mahmood Ali Vs Sri Shivendra Pratap Singh, District Basic Education Officer, Raebarlei

Dr. Sabiha Praveen Siddiqui vs Mrs. Leena Jauhari Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag Sectt. Lko

Smt. Jageshwari vs Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Superitendent of Police and Another

Amar Nath vs Sri Nath Singh Kushwaha and Another