Vijay Dev Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13828

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1712 of 2024

Appellant :- Vijay Dev Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Irfan Alam,Anand Kumar Arya,Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi,Vivek Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶7

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking following reliefs:-

¶8

"To set aside the Bail Rejection Order dated 26.04.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 789/12-A/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0038 of 2024, u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v), 3(2)(cha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Payagpur, DistrictBahraich."

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that under the order of Consolidation Officer, the property in question was recorded in the name of the appellant. Thereafter, he sold out the said property. In the meantime, the said order was challenged before S.O.C. and the appeal was allowed, by which, the order passed by the C.O. was set aside, thereafter, the F.I.R. in question was lodged.

¶10

It is next submitted that out of the Court, the issue has already been resolved between the appellant and the complainant and a suit for cancellation of the sale deed has been filed by the complainant. The appellant is ready to give no objection in the said suit.

¶11

It is lastly submitted that at the time of deciding the bail application, learned trial Court failed to consider that the property in question was recorded in the name of the appellant in pursuance of the order passed by Consolidation Officer, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that after detailed investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigation Officer.

¶13

Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact that after the order passed by Consolidation Officer, the property was sold out, but the said order was set aside by the S.O.C.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the property in question was recorded in the name of the appellant in pursuance of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, but the said order was set aside by the S.O.C. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶15

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The order dated 26.04.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 789/12-A/2024 is hereby set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant- Vijay Dev 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:-

¶17

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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.

¶18

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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.

¶19

(iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant 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.

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

¶21

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Arpan

¶23

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

Vijay Dev v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Dev v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Ramcharan Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Raghuvir Singh @ Bhola Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Ram Pyare vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma the Assistant Collector / Tahsildar, District Ayodhya

Dr. Arvind Kumar Verma and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Tribal Development Lko. and 6 Others

Saurabh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another