In this bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant despite charges of cheating and forgery, subject to the deposit of the amount involved and furnishing of sureties as a condition precedent.
Release on bail subject to payment of Rs.1,96,000 by way of fixed deposit receipt or in a nationalized bank, along with two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6613 of 2017
Applicant :- Mohit Kashyap @ Amit Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
Prosecution story as per the first information report is that the co-accused Rakesh Yadav used to threat the informant by Mobile No.9528814718 to deposit Rs.five lakhs, then informant deposited Rs.1,96,000/- in the account no.20314594668 of SBI Hardoi which is in the name of Amit Kashyap.
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 29.6.2016.
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.
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.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Mohit Kashyap @ Amit Kashyap involved in Case Crime No.183 of 2016, under Sections 386, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Saroorpur, District Meerut 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.1,96,000/- 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 ultimately paid to the person concerned occasioned to wrongful loss on the satisfaction of court concerned.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
Order Date :- 16.1.2018
Dev/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial given the charges of extortion and forgery and his assurance to cooperate with the process.
Mohit Kashyap @ Amit Kashyap
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
