Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14360

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8674 of 2024

Applicant :- Om Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nisha Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Km. Anjali Gautam,Shailendra Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Mrs. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

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. 126 of 2023, under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, P.S.- Lonikatra, District - Barabanki.

¶8

On 08.01.2025, the following order was passed, wherein the applicant was released on interim bail:-

¶9

"1. Heard Mrs. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant, Ms. Anjali Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the informant/complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

2. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Om Prakash for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 126 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Lonikatra, District Barabanki, during trial.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and the F.I.R. appears to have been lodged under some suspicion and the charge sheet has been already been submitted and all the offences charged against the applicant are triable by Magistrate and he is languishing in jail in this case since 19.12.2023 (more than one year).

¶12

4. It is also submitted that without admitting his guilt the applicant is ready to settle the dispute and in this direction has already given about Rs. 40,000/- to the informant and it is undertaken that the remaining disputed amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- shall be paid to the informant by the applicant within one month of his release from the prison.

¶13

5. It is next submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

6. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant, while Ms. Anjali Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the informant/complainant, submits that the informant has been defrauded of Rs. 3,90,000/-, out of which, a demand draft of Rs. 40,000/- has already been given from the side of the applicant to the informant. However, an apprehension has been shown that the applicant may not keep his promise of paying Rs. 3,50,000/- within one month of his release from the prison.

¶15

7. Considering the fact that the applicant has undertaken to pay Rs. 3,50,000/- to the informant within one month of his release from prison and it is admitted to the parties that demand draft of Rs. 40,000/- has already been paid to the informant, which has been acknowledged by the informant, who is present before this Court personally, the applicant may be released on interim bail for a period of two months from today.

¶16

8. Thus, the applicant- Om Prakash is released on interim bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

10. List this case on 3rd March, 2025, before which date the applicant, having regard to the statement given by his counsel would pay Rs. 3,50,000/- to the informant.

¶23

11. It is directed that the applicant shall remain present before this Court personally on the next date of listing. The informant, if so wish, may also remain present on the said date. "

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has paid Rs.40,000/- through demand draft and a condition was imposed while granting the interim bail that the applicant will pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the informant within a period of one month from his release from jail. She submits that in furtherance to the aforesaid order, the applicant has been released on interim bail and he has paid Rs.3,50,000/-. In support of her contention, she has placed a copy of the RTGS Receipt, which is taken on record. She also submits that now the applicant has complied with the order as was undertaken in paragraph seven of the order dated 08.01.2025. Thus,

¶25

submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the informant has received the aforesaid amount. Informant is also present before this Court and she has also admitted that she has received Rs.3,50,000/-.

¶27

Let the applicant- Om Prakash involved in the aforementioned crime be released on regular bail with the following conditions, since the personal bond and two sureties have already been furnished, therefore, those are not required to be furnished again:-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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

¶31

(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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. State of U.P. Prin. 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

Farmaan Vs Union of India Thru. Director of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Office Lko.

Pawan Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mohd. Miya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Sanjay Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohammad Shahjan @ Pandiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Raheesh Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko