Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 163973 (ALL)

TILAKRAM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO AND ANOTHER

NABAIL/1224/2025 · 2025-09-15

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1224 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Amitabh Banerjee, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.116 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 336(3), 338, 318(3) B.N.S., registered at Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 22.04.2025 against four persons, including the applicant stating that the complainant needed some land and the applicant and other two co-accused persons Anil Yadav and Sunil Yadav introduced the complainant to the fourth co-accused person Keshav Ram and showed his land. On the asking of the applicant and co- accused persons Anil Yadav and Sunil Yadav the complainant transferred Rs.2,50,000/- to the bank account of co-accused Keshav Ram and the complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/- in cash also. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the land belongs to a Keshav Ram who is a person belonging to scheduled caste and it does not belong to co-accused Keshav Ram in whose account the money has been transferred. The F.I.R. further states that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amitabh Banerjee, Beebhu Banerjee Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A. Tilakram .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) accused persons have forged some documents in presence of the complainant. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in a non-cognizable report for the offences under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. has been disclosed in para 24 of the affidavit, in which he has not received any summon. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the investigation in the matter is still going on. 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the complainant has paid money to the bank account of co-accused Keshav Ram and no amount has been paid to the applicant and the only allegation against the applicant is of having introduced the complainant to co-accused Keshav Ram and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Tilakram before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court: (i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (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; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court' (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and NABAIL No. 1224 of 2025 2 (v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. September 15, 2025 Ram. NABAIL No. 1224 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench