Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10676 (ALL)

HARENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/15165/2023 · 2025-07-23

Sandeep Chaudhary Joint Registrar Judicial

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15165 of 2023 Applicant :- Harendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh,Sandeep Kumar,Sukrampal,Tikendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Kishor Mishra Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for informant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.717 of 2018, under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura during the pendency of trial. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegations of the FIR, the informant met with Sarabjeet Maganu @ Bhagwat Dharma who introduced the informant with the present applicant- Harendra Kumar and thereafter the Harendra Kumar assured him that he will help him in purchasing the land. On assurance of the present applicant, an amount of Rs.51,485/- were transferred in the account of Sarabjeet Maganu @ Bhagwat Dharma. Learned counsel further submits that no money was ever transferred in his bank account. The main role has been attributed to Sarabjeet Maganu @ Bhagwat Dharma in whose account money was transferred by the informant but the police has submitted final report in favour of Sarabjeet Maganu @ Bhagwat Dharma. Learned counsel submits that there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2018 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has been convicted in six cases. It is next contended that the applicant is a habitual of committing similar nature of crime. In earlier case, the applicant has duped a foreigner lady in the same manner and faced conviction. Hence, his bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending the amount was transferred in the account of Sarabjeet Maganu @ Bhagwat Dharma. The applicant has played active role by enticing the informant to transfer alleged money in the account of Sarabjeet Maganu @ Bhagwat Dharma. He further submits that the if the applicant is enlarged on bail he will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses. 6. It has been submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that no amount was transferred in the bank account of the present applicant and final report has been submitted in favour of Sarabjeet Maganu @ Bhagwat Dharma. . 7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant- Harendra Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case 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 that :- (i). The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii). The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii). The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 10. It has been informed that the charge sheet was submitted way back in the year 2019 and yet the trial in the said case has not commenced, therefore, it is expected from the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial in this case and decide the same peremptorily within six months. Order Date :- 24.7.2025/Mukesh Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad