Allowed

Shriniwas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019BAIL/39433/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a bail application filed by Shriniwas. The court, without expressing an opinion on merits, found the case fit for bail given facts and circumstances. The applicant was released on executing a bond and furnishing sureties under various conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Shriniwas Vs State of U.P. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39433 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Shriniwas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Shriniwas in connection with Case Crime No.564 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶7

The first information report was lodged against some unknown persons with the allegation that some people are fabricating forged credit cards of the American Express and from the aforesaid credit cards they are doing online shopping and they have caused huge loss to the American Express. The police arrested the co-accused persons Sandeep Kumar and Sandeep Baniwal. The name of the present accused has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused, Sandeep Kumar and Sandeep Baniwal. The applicant was arrested on 29.05.2019 on the information given by the police informer and certain adhar cards and PAN cards were allegedly shown recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report and nothing has been purchased by him by using that cards. He submitted that his name has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Sandeep Kumar and Sandeep Baniwal. He further submitted that there is no public witness of the aforesaid recovery. He submitted that all the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Shriniwas involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.10.2019 R./

Shriniwas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriniwas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harvindra Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Gaus Vs State of U.P.

Anil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Vs State of U.P.

Karan Chauhan Vs State of U.P.