Rampreet Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10827

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1539 of 2025

Applicant :- Rampreet Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Harsh Vardhan Kediya,Pallav Shukla,Shashank Tilhari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Rampreet Yadav seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 444 of 2016, under Sections 409, 120B IPC, registered at P.S. Kadipur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, the applicant was Niab Tehsildar and keys of the double locks were kept with him. On the date of occurrence i.e. 14.10.2016, rupees one crore fifteen lacs were kept in the double locks but later on both the locks were cut and amount was taken away by some thieves regarding which an FIR was lodged on 15.10.2016 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against unknown persons. After investigation, a final report was filed by the police. Thereafter again further investigation was made by Economic Offences Wing and in its report the guards of treasury were made liable for carelessness from their duties but present applicant was made liable under Section 409 IPC for embezzlement of the amount only on the basis that limit of keeping the amount was rupees three lacs. It is also submitted that the incident was related to theft, therefore, it cannot be said that the amount taken away by the thieves was embezzled by the present applicant though it may amount to dereliction from duty. It is next submitted that now the applicant has been retired and is in jail since 28.12.2024 having no criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record as well as FIR and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view

¶11

that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Rampreet Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 444 of 2016, under Sections 409, 120B IPC, registered at P.S. Kadipur, District Sultanpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

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

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 AKK

¶20

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

Rampreet Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rampreet Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suresh and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Ors.

Ravi Rathore Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Deptt. and Ors.

Pramod Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Sameena and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. andORS.

Upendra Nath Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. a.C.S./ Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko.

Braj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Anr.