Allowed

Sarvesh Dixit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2020BAIL/21749/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted interim bail to the applicant in a criminal matter involving crimes under Section 406 IPC, emphasizing that granting bail should not express an opinion on the merits of the case or prove innocence. Three conditions were imposed regarding evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and court appearance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was to be released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Sarvesh Dixit Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21749 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Dixit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an L.I.C. agent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The informant's husband had opened an Insurance policy no. 235168998 on 18.3.2010 and the date of maturity is March 2026. The informant/ policy holder had not paid premium instalment due to which the policy was lapsed in the year 2010. The applicant had informed to the informant/ policy holder about the lapse of policy even then the policy holder had not paid premium instalment. The first information report has been lodged with delay of 11 years. There is no satisfactory explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. No offence is made out against the applicant. Three other F.I.Rs. have been lodged by the family members of the informant and they have also got lodged several F.I.Rs. against the applicant by the villagers. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant belongs to a reputed family and there is no apprehension that he will abscond or temper the evidences. The applicant is in jail since 26.5.2020.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Sarvesh Dixit involved in Case Crime No. 20 of 2020, under Section 406 IPC Police Station Derapur District Kanpur Dehat 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 with the following conditions;

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and he will cooperate with the trial.

¶12

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶13

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.8.2020 Gss

Sarvesh Dixit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Dixit 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

Himanshu Alias Prabal Pratap Vs State of U.P.

Mo. Aamir Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Pal Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Maruf Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Dixit Vs State of U.P.