Allowed

Mohd. Khalik v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2018BAIL/11652/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge allowed bail to Mohd. Khalik accused of cheating and forgery involving cheque misappropriation. Bail was granted subject to furnishing a personal bond, two sureties, and depositing Rs. 2,80,000 as security, with directions for expedited trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and prior deposit of Rs. 2,80,000 as security.

Mohd. Khalik Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11652 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Khalik Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh,Satya Prakash Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Rana, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

Prosecution story as per the first information report is that the informant is the Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Lalganj Branch, District Azamgarh and on 21.9.2015 the applicant who is having his account in the said branch has came with cheque no.215494 amounting to Rs.2,86,400/- had filled up the deposit receipt and deposited the cheque in the said branch, however, after due query on the same day the said amount was transferred in the account of applicant and on the same day he has withdrawn the same. It is further alleged that the person who has issued the cheque after knowing about the fact stated that the said cheque has not been issued by him as the same has been issued on 16.9.2015 for Rs.2230/- in the name of Sri Tools Company, however, knowing about the fact the informant contacted the account holder i.e. the applicant and stated that by wrong cheque he has withdrawn the said amount, therefore, it is necessary to deposit the same by him and the applicant has given assurance to deposit the same within ten days but the same has not been deposited.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the matter is essentially of a civil nature and has been given a cloak of criminal offence, and the present case has been filed with malafide intention to victimize and harass the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.1.2017.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the money has been misappropriated by the applicant fraudulently and dishonestly by committing fraud and forgery and, therefore, he is not entitled for indulgence, and incase the applicant is released on bail, the amount in question be secured by this Court.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the undertaking given by the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant should be granted bail.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Mohd. Khalik involved in Case Crime No.248 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Devgaon, District Azamgarh 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 and also subject to prior deposit of Rs.2,80,000/- by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt or as the case may be, in the court concerned (payable in court's name), to be invested in a nationalized bank and

¶12

ultimately paid to the person concerned occasioned to wrongful loss on the satisfaction of court concerned.

¶13

It is made clear that furnishing of aforesaid security by the applicant will not, in any way, prejudice the right/defence of the applicant during the trial of the case.

¶14

In case the applicant is acquitted in the present criminal case by the court of law, aforesaid security, if furnished by the applicant, shall be discharged in his favour.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions or in case of default in deposition of amount as directed herein above, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail granted herein above and the applicant will be taken into custody immediately.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.2.2018

¶22

Dev/-

Mohd. Khalik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Khalik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

mohammad junaid Vs State of U.P.

pawnesh pandey alias inspector Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P.

furkan Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

babloo yadav Vs State of U.P.