Allowed

Kamlesh Tripathi @ Ramapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2025BAIL/1090/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under cheating and forgery provisions of the IPC and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court found no prima facie evidence connecting the elderly applicant to the offence, noted custody since June 2024 and explained criminal history, and released her on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions regarding trial attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

Kamlesh Tripathi @ Ramapati Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7521

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1090 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Kamlesh Tripathi @ Ramapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Nath Pandey 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

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 34 of 2022 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 204 and 506 of IPC and 7A Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 P.S.- S.I.T. District- Lucknow.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is a woman of 75 years of age and is suffering with several diseases. He submits that in fact the land in question was transferred in the name of the present applicant while sale deed was executed by father of the applicant. He submits that once the land was sold out in favour of the brother and sister-inlaw of the complainant, no complaint was made and as soon as it was sold out in the name of Brijesh Kumar Awasthi, the first information report has been lodged while implicating the applicant. He added that no such offence has ever been committed by the applicant and if anything is happened i.e. due to misconception. He submits that no mensrea is involved in the present matter and the applicant has six cases criminal history which has been explained and she is languishing in jail since 11.06.2024 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, she is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2024; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence; criminal history of the applicant has been explained coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Kamlesh Tripathi @ Ramapati involved in the aforementioned crime 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 following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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;

¶15

(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

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Mayank

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamlesh Tripathi @ Ramapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Tripathi @ Ramapati 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

Chaman @ Hafeej Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sec. Home Lko

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Radheyshyam Pasi Alias Radhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohd. Arshkhan Alias Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko