Allowed

Jagdish Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2022/2215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2215 of 2022, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Jagdish Tiwari charged with offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 406, 504, and 506. The court allowed the application invoking Article 21 and citing Dataram Singh, imposing conditions including repayment of the alleged amount and appearance per the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including repayment of amount and attendance at trial.

Jagdish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2215 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jagdish Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Pratap Singh,Alok Kr. Misra,Utkarsh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Angrej Nath Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and Smt. Mamta Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 44 of 2022, U/S 419, 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is said to be the agent in SIC and Sahara India and has a bio-metric machine, by which he used to get the money withdrawn from the account of the customers by using their thumb impression. As per the allegations in the FIR, the applicant is said to have withdrawn Rs. 2,71,750/- from the account of the informant and is said to have usurped the said amount and not returned it to the informant.

¶8

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 nothing to do with the said offence and he has acted bonafidely, and he is ready to return the said amount to the first informant, but is unable to do so being languishing in jail. 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 16.1.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant- Jagdish Tiwari, 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, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall return the amount in the account of the first informant within a period of three months and shall deposit the receipt thereof with the Court concerned.

¶13

(ii) 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

(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 IPC.

¶15

(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., 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

(v) 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

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.7.2022 Shalini

¶20

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.07.08 10:24:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jagdish Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Guddu Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Mewa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Yogendra Narayan Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Ravindra Kishore Vs State of U.P.Thru. Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) Lko.

Shahbaaz @ Lodar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow