RAJ KUMAR @ NANKAOO IN ADHAR CARD NAMED RAJKUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.
BAIL/8975/2025 · 2025-09-22
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 165532 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 165532 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8975 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Himanshu Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Satyendra Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.550 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Gosainganj, District- Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 07.12.2023 against five named persons, including the applicant describing him as an imposter for co-accused Jaipal, stating that the complainant had an old acquaintance with co-accused Karan Verma. Karan Verma induced him to purchase agricultural land of co-accused Jaipal. Rs.10 Lakhs were transferred to the bank account of Jaipal through R.T.G.S. and Rs.57,25,000/- were transferred to other accounts as per the instructions of Karan Verma and Jaipal. A sale deed was executed on 23.11.2023. Thereafter, when the complainant went to take possession of the land, it transpired that the sale deed was executed by some imposter and not by the owner of the land Jaipal. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. 5. A copy of the charge-sheet dated 17.11.2024 has been annexed with the affidavit wherein it is recorded that the land was worth Rs.2,40,00,000/- whereas the sale consideration was settled at Rs.1,17,00,000/-. Rs.10 Lakhs were transferred to the bank account of Jaipal as earnest money co-accused persons Karan Verma and Bhupendra Singh hatched the conspiracy of the offence and they set-up the imposter for executing a sale deed in respect of the land of jaipal. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivam Verma, Himanshu Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raj Kumar @ Nankaoo In Adhar Card Named Rajkumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
6. The amount was transferred to the bank account of Jaipal and no amount has been transferred to the bank account of the applicant. 7.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had been allured by co-accused persons- Karan Verma and Bhupendra Singh and both of them have already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Copies of their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure Nos.5 and 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. 8. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge- sheet has been submitted on 17.11.2024. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that there is no allegation that any amount had been transferred to the bank account of the applicant; that the offence is alleged to have been committed under a conspiracy hatched by co-accused persons Karan Verma and Bhupendra Singh and both of them have been granted bail in the present case; that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 14.11.2024 whereas the investigation stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid case on the ground of parity. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Raj Kumar @ Nankaoo In Adhar Card Named Rajkumar be released on bail in the aforementioned 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:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court. September 22, 2025 -Amit K- BAIL No. 8975 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench