Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Dinesh Kumay Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav – Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 3188 of 2024
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Bail - Criminal Law - Release of the Applicant on Bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 408 I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for release on bail in a case where he was accused of not refunding money to investors who had made investments in STS/Sankalp Group.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had been falsely implicated and that five co-accused persons had already been granted bail in the same case, leading to the decision to grant bail to the applicant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be released on bail in the case involving allegations of not refunding money to investors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the applicant's criminal history, the arguments of the learned counsel, and the fact that five co-accused persons had already been granted bail in the same case before deciding to grant bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail in the case, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Abhay Raj Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 317 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 408 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.07.2022 against eight persons, including the applicant, alleging that the informant and his family members had made investments in STS/Sankalp Group under allurement of lucrative return but upon maturity the money was not refunded to the investors.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of wrong averments made in the FIR. The informant had not made any investment in STS/Sankalp Group rather he had made investment in LLC Multistate Agro Co-operative Society Ltd., under various schemes under which they had to be given plots of land upon completion of investments for various periods. The investors did not deposit the complete amount by paying all the installments rather they filed the FIR.
5. The applicant's criminal history of 34 cases has been disclosed in para 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. and he has been granted bail in 8 cases.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Om Prakash Verma, Abhishek Upadhaya, Gunjan Verma, Atul Verma and Sharad Kumar Verma have already been granted bail in the present case by means of orders dated 15.09.2023, 16.08.2023, 18.10.2023, 09.08.2023 and 07.11.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.10654 of 2023, 5637 of 2023, 12390 of 2023, 10010 of 2023 and 13127 of 2023 respectively.
7. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.
8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that five co-accused persons have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be release on bail in the aforesaid crime.
9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.
10. Let the applicant-Dinesh Kumay Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.
The court considered the applicant's criminal history, the arguments of the learned counsel, and the fact that five co-accused persons had already been granted bail in the same case before deciding t....
The court considered the principle of parity in granting bail to the applicant, taking into account the bail granted to other co-accused persons in similar circumstances.
Applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing witnesses, during investigation or trial.
The court may grant bail based on the assertion of innocence and lack of dispute from the opposing counsel, without affecting the merits of the case.
Granting bail based on lack of specific allegation, absence of criminal history, and parity with co-accused.
The court considered the similar bail granted to co-accused and the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, in granting bail to the applicant.
The court established that bail can be granted when the nature of allegations is not serious, and there is a lack of incriminating evidence, especially when co-accused have been granted bail under si....
The court granted bail based on the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and insufficient evidence against him, emphasizing the rights under Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
