Allowed

Usman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2021BAIL/19953/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, alleging false implication in a cheating case involving a defunct company. Rel challenging delay in FIR and lack of recovered evidence, the Court ordered release on personal and surety bonds with conditions, guiding the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding attendance and witness tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19953 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Usman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pandey Balkrishna,Prashant Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next contended that the present first information report has been delayed for nearly 9 years although the company had flee away in the year 2017 whereas the director details of the company shows that the company had become defunct since 2015, which itself shows the malicious motive of the directors of the company itself. Not a single penny in the form of investment amount has been recovered nor have any documents regarding investment recovered from the possession of the applicant, the said fact has been mentioned in para 19 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. 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 has 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.10.2020. Criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in paragraph no. 17 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application.

¶8

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- Usman , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 580 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 504, 506 & 406 IPC, Police Station- Thakurdwara,

¶12

District- Moradabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

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

¶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 One year 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 :- 21.9.2021

¶24

Arti

Usman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman 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

Roshan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raju Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Nigam Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Chand Vs State of U.P.