Allowed

Rahul Alias Mahesh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2025BAIL/11964/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed - Allahabad High Court - Rahul alias Mahesh - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11964 of 2025 - Case Crime No. 91 of 2018, P.S. Thariyaon, District Fatehpur - Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 272, 273 IPC - Sections 103, 104 Trade Marks Act 1999 - gutka packing - cheating/forgery/counterfeiting trade mark - parity with co-accused Ramchandra Gupta (bail dated 7.8.2018, Bail Appn. No

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Rahul alias Mahesh in Case Crime No. 91 of 2018, P.S. Thariyaon, District Fatehpur, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditi

Rahul Alias Mahesh vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53947

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11964 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Alias Mahesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Yadav,Phool Singh Yadav,Vaibhav Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There are allegations against the named accused that they were packing Gutka.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the First Information Report.Co-accused, Ramchandra Gupta has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 7.8.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29552 of 2018.The applicant is in jail since 21.2.2025 and has criminal history of two case to his credit, which has been explained in paragraph-12 of the bail application..

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677. and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over

¶11

and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant,Rahul alias Mahesh , involved in Case Crime No.91 of 2018 , under Section419,420,467,468,471,272,273 IPC, and section 103,104 Trade Mark Act, 1999 Police StationThariyaon, District- Fatehpur, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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. 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.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Atul kr. sri.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Alias Mahesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Alias Mahesh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Bind vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akshay Baliyan vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashfak vs State of U.P.

Shailu Alias Shailendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul vs State of U.P.