Allowed

Upendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024BAIL/7215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, this Court released the applicant on personal bonds with two sureties, noting no issue regarding flight or witness tampering. Standard conditions regarding court presence and undertaking were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each.

Upendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45317

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7215 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Upendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amol Kumar Srivastava 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

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.45 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 4/10 of U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998 relating to P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶9

It is urged that the applicant was not named in the First Information Report. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was apprehended from a public place and in the statement of the co-accused, the applicant has been implicated.

¶10

It is further submitted that even the alleged recovery which has been shown is concocted as there has been no independent witness, the name of the applicant has been surfaced from the the statement of the co-accused namely Nitish, apart from the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and he has been in Jail since 31.05.2024.

¶11

It is also urged that the co-accused namely Suraj Prasad, Nitish Kumar and Rajan Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of the order dated 27.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4505/2024; order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4720/2024 and order dated 07.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.1300/2024. Copies of the aforesaid orders are brought on record as Annexure No.8 respectively.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as 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.

¶14

Let the applicant Upendra Yadav involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number 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.

¶15

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Upendra Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vasim Jahan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chairman Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Another

Asjad and Others Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and Others

Jagnnath Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation/ Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda and Others

Ram Abhilakh Verma vs Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, Lucknow, U.P. and 4 Others

Vishnu Swaroop Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 3 Others

Mohokha Devi and Another vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko Thru. Secy. and Others