Bail application dismissed by the court due to lack of jurisdiction or being a lower tier court decision with no substantive legal proposition defined in judgment. The bail was not granted to the applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3238 of 2020
Applicant :- Smt. Saroj Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 214 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Hari Parvat, DistrictAgra with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is wholly innocent and she has been made a scapegoat by certain broker and she is to obtain benefit of Rs.25,000/under the Swatah Rojgar Yojana (Self Employment Scheme). It is alleged that the applicant had filed forged income and caste certificates in order to derive benefit. It is argued that it is yet to be established by an expert that the said documents were forged. In fact, the manipulation was done by the brokers who took the major part of the money received by the applicant under the aforesaid scheme. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of officials and brokers who are directly involved in fabrication of documents. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 28.11.2019, having no criminal history to her credit, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant- Smt. Saroj Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2.The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3.The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 17.2.2020 Dhirendra/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged with offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC in a fraud案件中.
Smt. Saroj Devi
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
