Allowed

Jissu Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2020BAIL/21652/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court allowed the release of the applicant, Jissu Patel, who was falsely implicated in a cheating case. Considering the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and prima facie satisfaction, the court released him on bail with a personal bond and specific conditions regarding absence and cooperation, citing lockdown impediments for sureti

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance and no misuse of liberty.

Jissu Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21652 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jissu Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kumar Ankit Srivastava,Shiva Priya Prasad

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Mrs. Swati Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

As per the prosecution version, three nominated persons are said to have fraudulently cheated the first informant on the promise of granting franchisee of multi national company; the first informant transferred approximately Rs.15,50,000/- to the bank accounts as directed in SBI, UCO and BOI; applicant is not named in the FIR; seven persons came to be arrested on the information furnished by the informant; sim cards and Rs.48,000/- are alleged to have been recovered from the applicant; it is urged that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; applicant is not the owner of the bank accounts; the circumstantial evidence does not link the applicant with the commission of offense. It is further submitted that the applicant has is languishing in jail since 5.3.2020, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for first informant though has opposed the prayer for bail, however, submits that during investigation the nominated persons in the FIR have been exonerated.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant Jissu Patel, involved in Case Crime No. 390 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 411, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶17

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶19

The order reads thus:

¶20

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶21

Order Date :- 12.10.2020 Kuldeep

¶22

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2020.10.12 17:32:47 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jissu Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jissu Patel v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Shahid Saifi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ji Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.