Rajdev Nishad @ Rajbabo vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 262 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Rajdev Nishad @ Rajbabo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Shukla 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

Learned counsel for applicant is granted liberty to implead the informant as opposite party no.2 to the anticipatory bail application and to renumber the opposite parties during the course of day.

¶8

This first anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.68 of 2025 under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(4), 338, 340(2), 60(2) B.N.S., P.S.Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 15.12.2024 when the applicant whom the informant knew from before introduced him to another person namely Lal Bahadur Nishad for purposes of sale and purchase of property due to which sale deed was also executed between the informant and Lal Bahadur Nishad on 02.01.2025 and was also registered. As per allegations made, the informant subsequently came to know from villagers that the seller impersonated the actual owner of property.

¶10

It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him inasmuch as from a bare perusal of the First Information Report itself, execution of a registered sale deed on 02.01.2025 is admitted between the informant and the said Lal Bahadur Nishad. The role of applicant is only that of introducing both persons. It is submitted that even otherwise no cogent aspect has been indicated in the FIR with regard to allegation made of impersonation particularly since no suit for cancellation has been filed by the vendor of the property Lal Bahadur Nishad

¶11

with suit for cancellation being filed only by the informant. It is submitted that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

¶12

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail application with the submission that the allegations levelled against the applicant are self evident indicating his role in defrauding the informant. On the basis of instructions, however, it is admitted that there is no previous criminal history of applicant and that the alleged owner of the property, Lal Bahadur Nishad has not yet filed any suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

¶13

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that the First Information Report indicates involvement of applicant only as a person introducing the vendor and vendee of the property in question. The aspect of knowledge gained by the informant of impersonation also may require corroboration at the stage of investigation.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Rajdev Nishad @ Rajbabo shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

(ii) that 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;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

Issue notice to newly impleaded opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶23

List this case on 09.04.2025 alongwith service report.

¶24

Objections may be filed in the meantime.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Satish

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajdev Nishad @ Rajbabo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdev Nishad @ Rajbabo 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

Manjoor @ Manjoor Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Kumar Gaurav Srivastava in Fir Gaurav Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Govind Gupta @ Govind vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Siddharth Das @ Siddharth Shankar Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Teerath Alias Nanke vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Himanshu Patwa @ Siddharth vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.