Allowed

Dharmendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024BAIL/9702/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of the applicant in a cheating case. Considering that co-accused were on bail and the applicant had no flight risk, he was released on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions preventing tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Dharmendra Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62755

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9702 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dharmendra Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar,Sunil Kumar Singh 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

It is alleged in the prosecution case that upon the assurance given by the applicant and the co-accused persons, the informant has invested Rs. 2,00,000/- in the company. The complainant was allured that he will be given twice the amount deposited within 36 months, however, when he contacted in the office of the company, he came to know that Rant Chandra Dwivedi and all the directors of the company have gone to jail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that managing director of the company Ratan Chandra Dwivedi, Jainudeen Ansari, Director of the company and Jai Prakash Prajapati, Senior Team Leader of the company, have been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court, copy of which are on record as Annexure No. 2 collectively to the bail application.

¶9

It has been further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2021. He has explained his criminal history in of several cases of the like nature relating to the same incident in para 15 of the bail application.

¶10

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.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that the offences are triable by magistrate; similarly situated co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the trial court; the applicant has explained his criminal history, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.04.2021 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.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Dharmendra Prajapati, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 33/2022, under Sections 409/420 IPC, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶19

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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Madhu

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Prajapati 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Imran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lucknow and Annother

Sunil Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Ramu Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Amit Khandel Wal Vs Cbi/Scb Lucknow

Kuldeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another