Allowed

Naveen Goyal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2020BAIL/855/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a chamber proceeding written during the lockdown, this High Court granted bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case. The release was conditioned on furnishing a personal bond initially, with a requirement to provide two sureties within four weeks of the lockdown's end. The judgment also laid down strict conditions regarding court appearances and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond, with directive to furnish two sureties within four weeks of lockdown lifting.

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

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 855 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Naveen Goyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This bail application is being disposed of during the lock down period as per the order dated 04.04.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Naveen Goyal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Baldev, District- Mathura, during pendency of trial.

¶8

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of bail application that the applicant is working as Accountant in the Bank in question. No recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has only transferred the amount in the account based on the mandate and he was only responsible to take due diligence in checking the account number as per the mandate. As per the guidelines of RBI, the employees only need to check for the account number and not even the name. The amount so paid was never given in cash and was only paid via the account number as provided by the mandate. There is no criminal history of the applicant. He is in jail since 24.11.2019. Coaccused Gyanendra alias Kukki and Kapil Verma have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 20.4.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2503 of 2020 and 381 of 2020 respectively.

¶9

By filing counter affidavit, State opposed the bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

1.Considering the special circumstances of the lock-down prevailing in the district concerned presently and in the light of the directions of this Court in PIL No. 564 of 2020 dated 06.04.2020, let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a

¶12

personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing. It is further directed that within period of four weeks from the date of lifting of the complete lock-down in the district concerned resulting in resumption of normal functioning of the Courts in that district, the applicant shall furnish two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled necessitating the surrender of the applicant.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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;

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 20.4.2020 Rmk.

Naveen Goyal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Goyal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siraj Mawaniya Vs State of U.P.

Abrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aasif and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Verma Vs State of U.P.

Purushottam @ Mulloo Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Amarnath Sahni Vs State of U.P.