Allowed

Neeraj Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2021BAIL/12678/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Neeraj Sharma accused of cheating and forgery under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34. Court imposed personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and two sureties in like amount with specific conditions regarding appearance and non-tampering.

Neeraj Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12678 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nishant Mehrotra,Mahendra Kumar Maurya,Vishnu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhinav Gaur

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

The Court has convened through Video Conferencing .

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0552 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Noida Sector 58, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that a false and concocted F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant against the applicant and four other accused persons on 31.10.2020 at 9:48 P.M. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the allegations made in the FIR, some excess money appears to have been transferred in the account of employees of the Bank. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case along with other accused persons on the allegation that he is also an employee of the Bank. It was further argued that the allegation against the applicant who is the Senior Sales Manager in H.B.D. Company under whom several other employees and team members were working is that he with the connivance of their team members have opened some new accounts in the Bank of the informant which were, prima facie, found to be fictitious.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further draw the attention of this court regarding the Show cause notice issued to the applicant by the authorized signatory of the Bank in which the person working under the applicant were shown to be responsible for the alleged incident. The relevant portion of the show cause notice is reproduced herein below :

¶10

"You have been working as a Branch In-Charge at Ghaziabad Salaried branch of the company. It has been reported that Your team members have

¶11

been involved in an unethical practice of sourcing customer cases whose income does not fulfill loan eligibility criteria. During further scrutiny of the said matter it has been discovered that your team members have been asking particular set of customers to open bank account in Zila Sahkari bank, Post opening of account Branch Sales Manager have been preparing their forged office ID cards, Salary slips, manipulating bank transactions and employment details. Your team has been misrepresenting their job profile as Government employees, working on payroll of UP State Government in different departments. In majority of the customer cases your team members have been shown their designation as Safai Karamchari. Further, they have targeted customers who are working as Safai Karamchari on contract basis at different Government departments with less salary. Fake OSV on the customer documents were forged and manipulated by your team members for processing the loan.

¶12

It has been noticed that, in all the aforesaid misconduct your involvement was observed as you never highlighted the above wrong doings of your team members to your seniors nor have you initiated any action against employees. Further, while conducting PD in multiple customer cases, you have not verified and authenticated the genuineness of the details of the customers' residence and employment which has been found to be incorrect."

¶13

It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the other accused who are named in the FIR namely Ashutosh Walia, Ankit Tyagi, Ravi Sahay, Sandeep Satsangi, Vinit Tyagi to whom allegations have been levelled have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.12.2020, 22.1.2021, 28.1.2021, 4.1.2021, 22.3.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9635 of 2020, 1912 of 2021, 9692 of 2020, 9728 of 2020 and 6116 of 2021. The case of the applicant is not on the worst footing than that of other accused persons, hence the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶14

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 01.11.2020 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶15

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that applicant

¶16

has committed the crime as alleged against him and there is possibility of the applicant being fleeing away as he has committed cheating with the bank for the purpose of sanctioning the loan amount. He further submits that role of the applicant was to carry out detailed verification at customer's office about his designation, employment status, salary and 3rd party reference checks etc. which was not done by the applicant honestly, hence, he is not entitled for bail.

¶17

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Neeraj Sharma involved in Case Crime No. 0552 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Noida Sector 58, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶20

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶21

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(5)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶25

(6) 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

¶26

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 11.6.2021 SA

Neeraj Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra @ Sheelu Vs State of U.P.

Suman Vs State of U.P.

Hadish Vs State of U.P.

Samir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.