Allowed

Gautam Mehra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2021BAIL/15245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to an applicant in a cheating case under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406. The court noted the applicant had compromised with the informant and was in constructive custody, granting bail on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attending trial and not tampering with witnesses.

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

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15245 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Gautam Mehra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram M. Kaushik,Katyayini,Priyanka Midha,Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga

¶5

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Kaushik and Ms. Priyanka Midha, learned Counsels for the applicant, Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel for the informant and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 726 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, Police Station Phase-3 Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report, which was lodged against co-accused Mukesh Khanna with the allegation that he duped the buyers. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that there is no direct allegation against the applicant which may involve him in commission of any offence like cheating or misappropriation of public money.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that from perusal of the agreement and its relevant clauses, it is apparent that M/s Rudra Buildwell Reality Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Mukesh Khanna was responsible for brochures, pricing as well as marketing interaction with clients, receipt of money or investors and had everything to do related to the development, marketing and sales of the project. The applicant is neither the director of the aforesaid company nor related with the affairs of the company. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the

¶10

applicant has never met or interacted with the informant and for that matter with any customer or investor, the applicant never received any sum from them.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the informant entered into a compromise with the applicant and filed an affidavit in this regard before the court below and therefore, he does not want to pursue the matter any further with respect to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant was in jail since 17.02.2021. Subsequently, he was released on interim bail vide order dated 28.05.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge FTC-I, Gautam Budh Nagar and in view of the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 13.01.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29639 of 2018 (Dhirendra @ Dheeraj Tyagi Vs. State of U.P.) . The applicant was in constructive custody of the Court and therefore, the applicant is entitled for regular bail and he is not liable to be surrendered for consideration for regular bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly submitted that in case he is released on regular bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets.

¶12

Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the informant accepted the aforesaid facts and has submitted that since the matter has been compromised between the parties and therefore, he does not want to oppose the bail application.

¶14

Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Gautam Mehra involved in the aforesaid crime 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, with the following conditions:

¶16

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶17

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶18

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.09.2021

¶26

Noman

Gautam Mehra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Mehra 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

Hazra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Munna @ Zafar @ Shakeel Vs State of U.P.

Ochiuwa Jonathan Onyebuchi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Alam Vs State of U.P.