Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2020BAIL/26082/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding cheating and misappropriation, the High Court allowed the bail petition. The court granted bail contingent upon the applicant furnishing a personal bond, two sureties upon restoration of normal court functioning, and a mandatory condition to deposit Rs. 1 lakh with the informant as a pre-condition for enlargement.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, contingent upon depositing Rs. 1 lakh with the informant as a pre-condition.

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

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 19.10.2020 Delivered On:- 22.10.2020

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26082 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Surendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Tripathi,Abhishek Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Inder Pal Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

The allegation against the applicant is that he has cheated the informant by making him invest in a company which has subsequently vanished with the investment. There is allegation that the informant invested Rs. 3 lakhs on 01.08.2017, Rs. 1 lakh on 01.10.2017 and transferred Rs. 2,50,000/- in the bank account of the applicant from the bank account of his wife. Total amount of Rs. 75,000/- have been misappropriated by way of cheating and violation of trust imposed by the informant in the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication. No such money was given to the applicant. The informant himself invested the money in the company on his own and has falsely implicated the applicant. He has further submitted that the alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 20.07.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the informant is a retired person and there is definite evidence of transfer of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the account the applicant. The applicant has colluded with the Director of the company and has misappropriated the amount.

¶12

Learned A.G.A has filed counter affidavit and has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the applicant has criminal history of one more case being Case Crime No. 203 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police StationBahadurgarh, District- Hapur.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Mukesh Kumar , in Case Crime No. 186 of 2020, under Sections- 406, 420 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Bahadurgarh, District- Hapur, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶15

The applicant will make payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the informant by way of account transfer and produce certificate of deposit before the trial court as a pre-condition for enlargement of bail .

¶16

¶17

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

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;

¶21

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶22

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶24

¶25

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The applicant will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

Order date :- 22.10.2020 Rohit

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Vs State of U.P.

Bhura Vs State of U.P.

Kamil Vs State of U.P.

Purushottam Vs State of U.P.

Yunis Vs State of U.P.

Kaptan Singh Vs State of U.P.