Jaikeerat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17294

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8722 of 2024

Applicant :- Jaikeerat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.466 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Kothi, District Barabanki.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the applicant alongwith co-accused were instrumental in impersonation of one Prem Prakash whose property was agreed to be sold to the informant by means of agreement to sale dated 07.09.2022.

¶9

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that in fact there was no impersonation of the executor of the deed. It is submitted that even otherwise the allegations levelled are only with regard to an agreement to sale by which no title can be transferred. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 11.06.2024.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that the allegations levelled in the FIR clearly indicate defrauding the informant by impersonating the actual owner of property.

¶11

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

¶12

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

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that allegations of impersonation have been alleged with regard to execution of an agreement to sale. It is settled law that an agreement to sale does not confer any title upon any person. The applicant is under incarceration since 11.06.2024. Previous criminal history of under the gangster Act is with regard to the same case crime as has been explained in the affidavit, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Jaikeerat , involved in the 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 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaikeerat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikeerat v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Home Lko.

Arvind Yadav Urf Fauji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

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

Indu Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Hafijurrehman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Jaikeerat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.