Allowed

Sri Suyash Agrawal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2021BAIL/38236/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court granted bail to an accused charged with cheating and forgery offences. The court imposed several conditions, including requiring attendance in court and adhering to trial timelines, while noting that its order does not constrain the trial court's independent opinion.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and fulfillment of multiple conditions regarding court attendance and trial proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38236 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sri Suyash Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Jaiswal,Anurag Shukla,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajeet Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0028 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that on similar set of allegations in Case Case Crime No. 41 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, applicant has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2021. It is further contended that the charge sheet in the matter has been filed and the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to FIR informant met applicant and his father through his friend Shailendra Kumar. Applicant and his father told that they have a P.T. Suryansh Total Indo Resources Co. in Indonesia, through this does business of coal, there is a lot of profit in investment in it and assuring that they have also obtained bank guarantee, persuaded informant to invest money in his company. Informant transferred total Rs. 1,45,21,721.08 on different dates in the account of applicant but after lapse of time, nothing was told about the money invested and profits. In the meantime he also came to know that they have returned money to some investors. On asking for return of invested money, benefits as well as documents of Bank guarantee, refused to return the money and stated that bank guarantee is forged. He also submits that 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.

¶9

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

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sri Suyash Agrawal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order,

¶12

the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶14

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶15

(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Trial court shall also ensure that the defence witnesses are examined on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial is completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.12.2021/RavindraKSingh

Sri Suyash Agrawal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suyash Agrawal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Narayan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P.

Nishant Vs State of U.P.

Jalil Khan @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Jairam Uraw Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Gupta Vs State of U.P.