Allowed

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2019BAIL/43234/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a bail application by allowing the plea. The applicant, accused of cheating and forgery, was in jail since 11.7.2019. The Court found no likelihood of fleeing or tampering with witnesses. Upon granting bail, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within one year under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions; trial to be concluded within one year.

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43234 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

S.I. Sri Fauran Singh, P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh is present before this Court. His presence is dispensed with until further order of this Court.

¶7

Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 657 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh, applied for bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent; he is not named in F.I.R. and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has committed no offence; prosecution story is false and fake. It has further been submitted that as per prosecution case, applicant was the accountant of the firm of informant and Rs. 5,90,000/- is said to be deposited in his account. On coming this fact into the knowledge of applicant, he made an application before the Branch Manager, Sindicate Bank whereupon entire amount has been credited in the firm of informant. Applicant is in jail since 11.7.2019. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that due to heavy pendency of the case in the court, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that entire amount has been deposited by the applicant to the account of informant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of

¶12

applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, evidence collected by I.O. during investigation and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶13

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant Manoj Kumar Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶17

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶18

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶19

However, it is provided that Trial Court shall proceed the trial in view of Section 309 Cr.P.C., expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment. In case, trial is not decided in the stipulated time, Trial Court shall inform this Court explaining entire circumstances and seek further time, otherwise it shall be treated as disobedience of the order of this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.11.2019 Manoj

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sharma 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

Karan Vs State of U.P.

Balveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mairaj Vs State of U.P.

Pyare Lal Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Sabir @ Akram Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P.