Allowed

Nagendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2021BAIL/3349/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed a bail application filed by an accused in a cheating case. The court allowed the bail prayer but imposed strict conditions, including mandatory deposit of the advance amount and personal appearance for specific trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two local sureties of the advanced amount subject to strict conditions including deposit of advance and personal appearance.

Nagendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3349 of 2021

¶2

Applicant :- Nagendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Nath Sharma

¶3

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the material on record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.0605 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation against the applicant is that Khata No.87, Plot No.307 was already sold on 19.07.2017 in favour of Sant Ram and on 26.08.2017 in favour of Khem Chand and Ashwani. Thereafter, on 24.12.2018 applicant executed registered agreement to sell in favour of informant by receiving advance Rs.13,96,000/-. He further submits that an N.C.R. was lodged on 01.06.2020 against the informant by the wife of the applicant. Further submits that giving cash of such a huge amount does not appear proper. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.10.2020.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that in the registered agreement to sell it has been specifically mentioned that advance was paid in cash, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and receiving of advance Rs.13,96,000/- being mentioned in registered agreement to sell executed by the applicant, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Nagendra involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the

¶9

like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶10

(i) Applicant shall deposit Rs.13,96,000/- before the trial court which shall be disposed of as per decision of the case by the trial court.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶12

(iii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 22.2.2021/Jitendra

Nagendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagendra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neel Kamal Vs State of U.P.

Shahid @ Puppy Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Waseem @ Banta Vs State of U.P.

Hardwari Lal Vs State of Up

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Mishra Vs State of U.P.