Allowed

Ramdev Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC9 May 2025BAIL/3908/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under BNS cheating-related sections for allegedly taking money for an unexecuted sale deed. Court noted civil-dispute colour, explained criminal history and repayment undertaking, and granted bail with standard trial-attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ramdev Yadav released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to trial-attendance conditions.

Ramdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27181

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3908 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ramdev Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Shukla,Amit Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party-State while power on behalf of informant has been filed by Mr. Arvind Kumar and Mr. A.D. Verma, Advocates, which is taken on record.

¶7

1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is also taken on record.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.744 of 2024, under Sections 340(2), 336(4), 338, 318(4), 319(2), 316 (2) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, applicant was instrumental in deceiving informant by accepting a substantial amount of money for purposes of execution of sale deed of immovable property, which was never executed.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which is evident from fact that there is no discussion with regard to any agreement to sell being executed between the parties. It is submitted that earlier applicant had sought to return the money which was provided by informant, which was refused by him. It is submitted that applicant also prepared two Bank Drafts of Rs,5,00,000/- each for purposes of repayment to applicant, which however was got frozen by Bank itself on an application given by informant. It is submitted that apart from aforesaid, applicant has already returned approximately Rs.7,00,000/- to informant and undertakes to return the remaining amount to informant. It is submitted that previous criminal history against applicant of one case has been explained while applicant is under incarceration since 19.03.2025.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate complicity of applicant in allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that the aspects of cheating are clearly attributable to applicant. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the basis of instructions admits that applicant had prepared Bank drafts which have been frozen by Bank on an application given by informant. It is admitted that applicant's previous criminal history of one case has been explained.

¶12

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 :-

¶13

"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."

¶14

"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."

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that primary gist of allegation levelled is of non-execution of sale deed despite sale consideration having been paid. The aspect of civil dispute being given a criminal colour would require consideration. The conduct of informant also does not indicate any attempt to conciliate. It is also admitted that till date no Suit either for specific performance or for recovery has been filed. Previous Criminal History of applicant has been explained. Applicant undertakes to repay the outstanding amount to informant. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant Ramdev Yadav , involved in 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 imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶19

(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/her under Section 269 of BNS.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial

¶22

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/her in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.5.2025 kvg/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramdev Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Amar Bahadur @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kailash Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Lale @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Abhishek Singh @ Rishabh @ Rishu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.