Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024BAIL/8162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the State's opposition and granted bail to the applicant in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51999

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8162 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Eshan Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 67 of 2022, under Sections 419,420,409 & 109 of IPC, Police StationBaddupur, District Barabanki.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He next added that the applicant is not named in the first information report and each and every allegation against one Om Prakash Verma who is Branch Manager in the society. He further added that the applicant was working as computer operator in the society and he had no knowledge that any amount was deposited by Om Prakash Verma. He further added that he has not committed any offence as has been alleged in the first information report. He further added that police has planted him being employee in the society. He further added that the applicant has explained six cases criminal history in para 15 of the bail application and except apart, there is no other previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 29.09.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the identically situated co-accused person namely, Chandan Yadav @ Sonu Yadav, has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 21-12-2022 passed in Criminal Misc.

¶10

Bail Application No. 14273 of 2022 and the applicant is seeking parity of the order aforesaid.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that during the investigation, name of the applicant has come into light and he was found involved in committing the aforesaid offence, but, he could not dispute the fact that the similarly situated co-accused person named above, has already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR and there is no whisper with respect to allegation made in the FIR; further so far as letter which was sent by the informant concerned, the name of the present applicant does not find place; applicant seems to be implicated in the instant matter as he was working as computer operator in the society and he is languishing in jail since 29.09.2022 and the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Thus, 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 without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav, 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

¶17

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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 AKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav 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

Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Deepu @ Shailendra Savita vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

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

Ayodhya Prasad Rawat vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Lalit Kant Verma and 18 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Women Welfare (Mission Vatsalya Yojna ) New Delhi and 3 Others

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