Allowed

Om Vishwakarma (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Allahabad HC27 May 2022/1395/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench allowed the second bail application of Om Vishwakarma in a cheating case involving Rs. 35 lakhs. The Court noted no criminal history and held the applicant had made out a case for bail despite the serious allegations.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-interference with evidence.

Om Vishwakarma (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1395 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Om Vishwakarma (Second Bail) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Sinha,Gaurav Verma

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.S. Tomar, learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶8

By means of the present second bail application, the applicantOm Vishwakarma, seeks bail in Case Crime No.15 of 2018, under Sections 417, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Chinhat, District- Lucknow, during the pendency of trial. His first bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 4.1.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10186 of 2019.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have duped the Informant to the tune of Rs.35 lakhs on the pretext of getting him a profit of selling wheat to the FCI.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations of the FIR, 5 lakh rupees through RTGS and another 5 lakh rupees in cash are stated to have been given to the applicant on 1.10.2016 and on 15.11.2016, again 25 lakh rupees have been given in cash. The said allegations are false. The applicant was in business terms with the Informant and had taken a total amount of Rs.8,50,000/- through bank transfer. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on bank statement by which Rs.7,80,000/- has been transferred to the account of Informant. It has been stated that Rs.70,000/- has been returned to the Informant in cash. There is no criminal history of the applicant except four other cases and out of the said four cases, the applicant is in bail in three cases and one bail is pending. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.8.2019 and he deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶11

Per contra, Sri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant- Om Vishwakarma, who is involved in the aforementioned case crime number 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, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

In case of breach 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Siddhant

¶21

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.05.30 19:06:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Vishwakarma (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Vishwakarma (Second Bail) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

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

Jitendra Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Shubham @ Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko.

Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Siraj @ Hasim and Another Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Rishab Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.