Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1377 (ALL)

Ritu Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-05-22

SAMEER JAIN

body2024
JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Shri Dheeraj Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Pradeep Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, Police Station Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation through the statement of co-accused she was made accused in the present matter. He further submits that except the statement of co-accused Jitu Yadav and confessional statement of applicant there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. He further submits that apart from the present case applicant was also made accused in one another case but in that case she is on bail. He further submits that the applicant is a lady and in the present matter she is in jail since 19.03.2024. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. However, it appears that co-accused Ankit Kesarwani by playing fraud duped Rs.9,00,000/-of the informant but it appears that applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and during investigation co-accused Jeetu Yadav was made accused and through his statement name of applicant was surfaced in the present matter and except the statement of co-accused and confessional statement of applicant, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant. 7. Further apart from the present case applicant was also made accused in one another case with similar allegation but it appears that in both the cases simultaneously applicant was made accused and in that case applicant is on bail. Further in the present matter she is in jail since 19.03.2024. 8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 10. Further in the present matter she is in jail since 19.03.2024. 8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant-Ritu 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 the court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 11. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.