Allowed

Pramod Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2020BAIL/4061/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under IPC sections 420, 406, and 506, the court allowed the applicant to be released on executing a personal bond and obtaining sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court. Conditions were imposed regarding appearance and preventing fraud or abuse of process. The order complies with Supreme Court directions for releasing accused without sureties due to the lockdo

What did the court decide?

Released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances and compliance with Supreme Court l

Pramod Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4061 of 2020 Applicant :- Pramod Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Pathak,Pradeep Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶4

This bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1162 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406 & 506 IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Moradabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶5

As per the averments made in the First Information Report a civil transaction was undertaken for sale of certain land belonging to Smt. Saraswati Devi (applicant's mother) and an agreement on Rs. 100/- Stamp was executed for the purpose. Five lacs are said to have been initially paid, thereafter Rs. 2,20,000/- has further been paid to the applicant and his mother but the sale deed has not been executed. It is alleged that since the complainant has invested her hard earned money and has been duped by the applicant as such criminal proceedings are required to be initiated against him.

¶6

A counter affidavit has been filed by learned AGA in which it is alleged that a settlement was undertaken before the Incharge Inspector for return of the amount but the settlement has not been honoured and thereafter a sale deed has been executed by applicant's mother in favour of someone else in which the applicant is a witness.

¶7

It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the alleged agreement is self-contradictory inasmuch as it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid initially while executing the agreement whereas the agreement contains reference to payment of Rs. 5 Lacs. It is urged that this document is a manipulated document and that there exists a civil dispute between the parties. It is submitted that at best the remedy available to the informant would be to institute a

¶8

suit for specific performance of contract or for return of alleged sum paid and First Information Report is clearly an abuse of the process of law. The applicant is otherwise languishing in Jail since 11.12.2019.

¶9

Perused the record and rejection order passed by the court below.

¶10

Let the applicant - Pramod Sharma involved in aforesaid case crime 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶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 229A 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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, 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.

¶20

The order reads thus:

¶21

"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."

¶22

Order Date :- 17.4.2020 Ranjeet Sahu

Pramod Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Mohammad Usman Vs State of U.P.

Shyamveer Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Satvir and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Bilal Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Shankar Verma Vs State of U.P.