Allowed

Ramesh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2022/1435/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail to the applicant in a cheating and breach of trust case involving a BDO, relying on principles of Article 21 and referencing Dataram Singh. Bail was allowed subject to personal bond, sureties, and strict conditions regarding court appearances and preventing misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions for court attendance and no non-bailable offence.

Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1435 of 2022 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Shukla

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Pal Singh,Keshav Ram Chaurasia,Ravi Shanker Tewari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 447 of 2019, U/S 409, 420 IPC, Police Station Tadiawan, District Hardoi, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused person, Manoj Gupta, is said to have usurped an amount of Rs. 1,55,200/- through F.T.O.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has further stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Applicant is the signatory with the BDO and ironically, the name of the Village Development Officer is missing from the array of accused persons in the charge sheet. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the report of the inquiry undertaken pertaining to the same alleged transaction, which has been annexed as Annexure2 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application, it has been stated that the Village Development Officer, Vimlesh Gupta has to deposit the said amount of Rs. 1,55,200/- to the account of the Programme Officer/DM, Hardoi. Learned counsel has further submitted that applicant has been put to double

¶11

jeopardy, as he has already been suspended in the departmental inquiry. Learned counsel has further relied on the statement of Surendra Gupta, Block Development Officer, wherein it has been categorically stated that the said discrepancy in the allocation of the amount occurred due to a dispute pertaining to the place of undertaking the construction at the site. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.12.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history against the applicant and that the main accused is enjoying the facility of stay of the proceedings.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant- Ramesh Chandra Shukla, 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,

¶15

the sureties be verified.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.7.2022/Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.07.12 18:32:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and Another

Arjun Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Amardeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Lala Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Moharram Ali Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin. Secy.Home Lko.