Allowed

Mayawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024BAIL/9573/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to Mayawati, applicant in a criminal case for cheating and forgery. The court noted she is a bona fide purchaser, has no criminal history, her co-accused are on bail, and a cancellation suit is pending. Bail granted contingent on strict conditions regarding witness tampering and court appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties via personal bond, adhering to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62136

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9573 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mayawati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser. The complainant has filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed which is pending before the court of competent jurisdiction.

¶8

The co-accused Rajesh Jaiswal and Rama Shankar who were assigned the role of being witness in the sale deed have been granted bail by this Court in Bail Nos. 8028 and 9391 -both of 2024. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 29.6.2024.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, suit for cancellation of sale deed filed by the complainant is pending and bail orders of co-accused, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant is in jail since 29.6.2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am prima facie satisfied that it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶12

5. Let the applicant Mayawati, involved in Case Crime No.030 of 2024 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Harraiya, district Balrampur be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the

¶13

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 she 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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

It is made clear that any observation(s) made in the present order shall not affect the trial.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.9.2024 kkb/

¶22

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

Mayawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Hem Karan Mathur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home Lko. and Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sri. Avnish Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Vinod Kumar Tiwari @ Lallu Maharaj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Faizi Ahmad @ Jaleel Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Yashpal Diwakar vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko