Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37505

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8381 of 2024

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Asthana,Manoj Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Srivastava,Atharva Arya,Shri Kishan Prajapati

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.53 of 2024, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 395 I.P.C., P.S. Vibhutikhand, District Lucknow.

¶9

In the prosecution case it is alleged that named accused persons by extending threat to the complainant who is allottee of Plot No.1/124 Vikrant Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow have beaten the labourers inside the plot and have also looted the CCTV camera and DVR installed in the plot.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that during investigation it was found that by impostering the complainant, the applicant got executed sale deed of Plot No.1/124 Vikrant Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to one Shivani Singh.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that Shivani Singh has already lodged an F.I.R. bearing No.0159/2024 , P.S. Vibhutikhand against the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of this fact, the charge-sheet in this case has been filed under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 3945 IPC. Applicant cannot be made suffer twice for one offence. It is submitted that from the applicant no sale

¶13

consideration amount has been recovered though the amount is alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of the applicant however, the same has been withdrawn by the other co-accused persons. He submits that the applicant is not the beneficiary. The applicant is a government servant working in the Indian Railways having minor children. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.03.2024.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2024, charge-sheet in the case has been filed, applicant is a government servant, apart from this F.I.R. another F.I.R. lodged by Shivani Singh against the applicant, there is no other criminal history against the applicant and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Raj Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶22

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.

¶23

(v) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(vi) 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Pappu @ Pappu Shankar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bablu @ Basant Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shah Alam Alias Dhoni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Aafak Ahamad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another