Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. on 20 July, 2010
Court No. - 28 Case :- BAIL No. - 4548 of 2009 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Umesh Chandra Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA and perused the record.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the statement of the witness Smt. Ramawati recorded under section 164 CrPC, the main accused in this case is Mahadev, Advocate, who demanded Rs. 1 lac from her for bail of her husband. She paid the demanded amount of Rs. 1 lac to Mahadev. The forged bail order was provided by Mahadev Advocate and she was unable to explain as to how Mahadev obtained the bail order. It was next submitted that the statement of the complainant Ram Kumar Verma has also been recorded under section 164 CrPC. He has admitted that he was convicted and sentenced in the case crime no. 609 of 1980 under section 302 IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, district Barabanki by the High Court. He had engaged Sri C.P. Pandey, Advocate for bail. Mr. Ram Kumar has further submitted that Mahadev Prasad Yadav handed over the bail order to his wife. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that neither the complainant Ram Kumar nor his wife Smt. Ramawati gave any statement against the applicant Om Prakash Dwivedi. Only this much is mentioned in the FIR that the applicant was also present on the seat of Mahadev Advocate, when he demanded money from the aforesaid Smt. Ramawati and at that time Mahadev introduced the applicant as an Advocate of the High Court, who promised to get the accused released on bail. It was next submitted that only an allegation of criminal conspiracy has been made against the applicant and the applicant is in jail since long. It was further submitted that if Mahadev Advocate introduced someone else as Om Prakash Dwivedi Advocate, it can not be inferred therefrom that it was the applicant, who was present on the seat of Mahadev Advocate.
The learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that there is adequate evidence against the applicant, who had played a main role in connivance with other accused. It was next submitted that the bail order of the Supreme Court was forged.
There does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses or abscond, if released on bail.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and statements of Ramawati and her husband Ram Kumar recorded under section 164 CrPC, complicity of the applicant, the severity of punishment and other facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and expedient to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Om Prakash Dwivedi, involved in the case crime no.582 of 2009 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, police station Kotwali, district Barabanki, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM concerned.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010 RKSh