Allowed

Shailesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024BAIL/6059/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for an accused not named in the FIR, whose alleged role was helping co-accused sell stolen golden articles and who was not seen in CCTV footage. Court granted regular bail subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and presence at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with four conditions imposed by the court.

Shailesh Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81415

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6059 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shailesh Rastogi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 97 of 2024, under Sections 392/411/414, 120-B IPC, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. The role assigned to the applicant is of helping the other co-accused persons to sell out the golden articles, though there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant. He further submits that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained in Paragraph 11 of the bail application. He next added that the applicant has not been seen in the CCTV Footage, as is specifically mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing the offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report; the role assigned to the applicant is of helping the accused persons to sell out the golden articles; the applicant has not been seen in the CCTV

¶12

Footage; the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 10.04.2024, coupled with the fact that the he has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Shailesh Rastogi 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

(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 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 :- 5.12.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

Shailesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Rastogi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, 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

Sharvan Kumar and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Virendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Vijay Kant Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shailesh Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.