Allowed

Piyare @ Pyare Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025/2450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Piyare @ Pyare Lal against allegations of cheating and fraud. The applicant claimed he was a victimized farmer with no knowledge of a purported property transfer. The Court found it a fit case for bail due to lack of adversarial facts by the State and granted relief subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail till disposal of trial subject to furnishing bond and sureties and obeying specified conditions.

Piyare @ Pyare Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5657

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2450 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Piyare @ Pyare Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0393 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406 & 506 IPC, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

¶8

From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 25.10.2024, the following order was passed:-

¶9

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

¶10

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0393 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406 & 506 IPC, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the owner of land in question as his name is recorded in the revenue record. He has drawn attention of the Court towards page 59 wherein copy of Khatauni is enclosed. He added that it has been alleged that property in question was transferred through registered sale deed by father of the present applicant but the land in question is still recorded in the name of the applicant and the applicant has no knowledge that the land has ever been sold out, and, therefore, he has committed no offence. He further added that the applicant himself has been victimized by way of instituting the F.I.R. and he being farmer is being harassed for his no fault. He further submits that the applicant is undertaking that he will co-operate with the investigating proceedings and he will remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when required. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and he has acute apprehension of being arrested by the police, as such, he may be granted anticipatory bail which he will not misuse.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicant is named in the

¶13

F.I.R. and there is sufficient proof that he has committed cheat and fraud, as such, he is not entitled to any relief.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court find it to be a fit case of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the present applicant Piyare @ Pyare Lal shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(ii) that 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

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

List/put up this matter in week commencing 18.11.2024 as fresh.

¶24

In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file the counter affidavit."

¶25

From perusal of the order dated 25.10.2024, it transpires that State counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thorough considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to substantiate that the present applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Piyare @ Pyare Lal till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶28

(ii) that 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;

¶29

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶30

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶31

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶32

In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶33

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Piyare @ Pyare Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyare @ Pyare Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Sudhir Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Niranjan Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Shubham Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Zunaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Pradeep Jain Alias Pradeep Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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