Allowed

Naresh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025BAIL/723/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under cheating/forgery provisions of the BNS and IT Act arising from an Aligarh FIR. The State did not dispute parity with a co-accused already granted bail. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including non-tampering with evidence and attendance at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions imposed by the Court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45830

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 723 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Naresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharam Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Naresh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.914 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Qwarsi, District-Aligarh during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the co-accused, Gopal Varshney, has been granted bail by this Court on 18.3.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42966 of 2024. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity for the reasons given in bail application of co-accused. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.10.2024.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶10

Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Ruchi Agrahari

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailu Pandit vs State of U.P.

Shakeel Afzal vs State of U.P.

Umesh vs State of U.P.

Mohammad vs State of U.P.

Shankar Singh vs State of U.P.

Deepak Rathor @ Rahul vs State of U.P.