Allowed

Rupesh Sahay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2024BAIL/8897/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 8897 of 2024 involving Rupesh Sahay under Sections 419/420/506/394 IPC. The High Court allowed bail by granting parity with a co-accused who had previously been released, noting the FIR delay and partial recovery of money without public witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties on conditions of ensuring attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and prohibition against tampering with evidence.

Rupesh Sahay vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66232

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8897 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rupesh Sahay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of seven days which has not explained. Offences are triable by magistrate. Out of Rs. 6,00,000/-, Rs. 3,50,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The alleged recovery is false as there is no public witness to the said recovery. The applicant has explained the criminal history in para 7 to the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.7.2024. Charge sheet in this matter has been filed by the police.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Rashid Ahmad alias Ajay Sharma who was assigned similar role has been granted bail vide order dated 2.11.2021 passed in Bail No.11496 of 2021. The applicant seeks parity with the said bail order.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail, the co-accused named above has been enlarged on bail by this court, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let the applicant, Rupesh Sahay involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 548/2021, under Sections 419/420/506/394 I.P.C., Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) 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.

¶18

(v) 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.

¶19

(vi) 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. Order Date :- 24.9.2024/kkb/

¶20

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

Rupesh Sahay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupesh Sahay v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vaibhav Shukla S/O Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla (Third Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sundarpata Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Mushik @ Chunna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Anshu Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Barkat Khan and Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Anr.