Ramchandra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1399

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7873 of 2024

Applicant :- Ramchandra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Parashuram Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,D.P. Dutt Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the informant and the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.P.Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 148 of 2024, under sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 471, 506 of the I.P.C., Police Station-Chinhat, DistrictLucknow.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant is vendor of the land bearing Gata No. 189, which is mentioned in the registered sale deed and at the time of registration of the sale deed, he was the owner of the land in question, which is an undisputed fact. He next added that infact the applicant has committed no cheat and fraud and there is no fabrication in any of the document, which is apparent from the perusal of the first information report. He submits that it is not a case of impersonation and the police, without collecting any cogent piece of evidence against the

¶10

applicant, has filed the chargesheet. He also submits that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 11-06-2024. He submits that the chargesheet has been filed against the applicant and as such, there is no possibility that he will threaten the witnesses or will tamper the evidences. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the cheque number, which is mentioned in one of the registered sale deed, is also mentioned with different amount and that amount has not been encashed in favour of the vendor. He also submits that the applicant has committed the offence of the same nature,wherein the first information report has been lodged against him and this fact was raised by way of an affidavit, but, the same has not properly been replied. He further submits that the applicant has committed cheat and fraud and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of the learned counsel for the complainant and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence as there is documentary evidence against him and as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is a vendor and at the time of selling out the property in question, the applicant was admittedly the owner of the land in

¶14

question. The question is raised by the other side that the boundary has wrongly been mentioned in the registered sale deed, which can very well be settled by the court of civil competence.

¶15

This court has also taken note of the fact that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and the chargesheet has been filed and the applicant is languishing in jail since 11-06-2024 coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶17

Let the applicant- Ramchandra involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶18

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶19

(2) 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. He 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

¶20

may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶21

(3) 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.; and

¶22

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 AKS

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramchandra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Ritesh Lodhi @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Sushimta Shahi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jamuna Prasad Gangwar and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko and 2 Others

Mohd. Zuber vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Smt. Karmdani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.