Allowed

Mahendra Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021BAIL/18448/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant, Mahendra Sharma, who is accused of cheating and related offenses. The court directed him to return the disputed amount of Rs. 8 lakhs within four months of release and expedited the trial of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with a direction to return Rs. 8 lakhs within four months.

Mahendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18448 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party, learned AGA, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in pursuance of the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by this court, the notice was sent by the mediation to the applicant and the first informant to their appearance before the Mediation Centre. The applicant was deposited Rs. 1 Lac through demand draft before Registrar Mediation Centre, thereafter, applicant's wife was so serious and he could not able to proceed to mediation and not be able to give the entire rest amount to the first informant, due to this reason the mediation was failed. Learned counsel on behalf of applicant further contended that the applicant is ready to return back the due amount which he has taken from the first informant. 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.03.2021. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶8

Learned counsel on behalf of opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶9

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Mahendra Sharma , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 195 of 2015, under Sections- 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police StationPhase-2, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant will return back the due amount of Rs. 8 lakhs to the first informant within a period of 4 months from the date of his enlargement on bail, if the same is not done by the applicant during the above specified period the court below is at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.9.2021 Arti

Mahendra Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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

Harish Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aniruddh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.