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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19399

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11871 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Babu Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 646 of 2023 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 & 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the applicant along with co-accused is instrumental in deceiving the informant of huge amounts of money for the purposes of employment in government department. The allegation pertained to the applicant and coaccused who are said to have received the said amounts.

¶9

It is further alleged that despite having taken the money, the applicant and the other co-accused kept assuring that the complainant may be given the employment and thereafter by giving a fraudulent appointment letter which was followed by a fraudulent postal letter, the complainant has been cheated. When he had realized and had sought the return of money, the applicant issued certain cheques which were also fraudulent as such the money could not be returned. The applicant is under incarceration since 2nd September, 2024.

¶10

The applicant has explained his criminal history in paragraph 15 of the affidavit to indicate that in one case he has been enlarged on bail and in the other a final report has been filed. It is thus urged that in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant be enlarged.

¶11

It has further been pointed out that the co-accused Aman Kumar @ Sattan and Vijay Singh have been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that F.I.R. clearly indicates the applicant as being main accused in the allegation levelled against him with the

¶13

amount for fraudulent persons also having been made in his account. It is however admitted that applicant has one previous criminal history which has been explained.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that the applicant and co-accused of having defrauded the informants on the pretext of providing them government employment. It also appears that certain amount of money was deposited in the applicant's account as well as that of co-accused Vijay Singh who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in bail Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 8023 of 2024. This court finds parity the case of applicant with that of co-accused Vijay Singh(supra).

¶15

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶16

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶17

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶18

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶19

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let applicant Rajesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime 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

¶21

imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) 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.

¶23

(ii) 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 269 BNS.

¶24

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.

¶25

(iv) 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 351 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 prabhat

¶27

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

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Guddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rinku Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Roshan Nishad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Zakir Hussain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Pawan Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko