The High Court granted bail to the applicant accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, taking into account the nature of the offence and the delay in lodging the FIR, subject to specific conditions.
applicant released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and complying with specific conditions regarding proceedings.
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. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12081 of 2021
Applicant :- Anil Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anshu Chaudhary,Durgesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga,Devendra Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
This matter is listed for hearing through video conferencing. Link has been sent to the respective learned counsels. Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State are connected through the link.
Heard Mr. Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Daga, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.0376 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the sale deed was executed on 26.09.2017 but the present First Information Report has been lodged after the delay of three years. He further submits that the applicant had also lodged an F.I.R. against the complainant for illegal detention in which final report has been submitted by the police authorities. He further submits that the present dispute is civil in nature and the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant with malafide intention. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and he is languishing in jail since 04.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Let the applicant Anil Shukla, who is involved in Case Crime No.0376 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.
(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 229-A IPC.
(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER 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.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 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.
Order Date :- 21.6.2021 pks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a bailable offence involving cheating and forgery.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and false implication support a bail application.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Anil Shukla
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
