Allowed

Dharnidhar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022/3647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under FIR No. 206 of 2021 involving offences under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, the High Court granted bail to the applicant pending trial, setting conditions regarding appearance and conduct, while reserving its opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on personal bond and sureties with specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

Dharnidhar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3647 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dharnidhar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Kishor Tiwari,Suresh Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in FIR No. 206 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Kumarganj, District - Ayodhya.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Several F.I.Rs. were registered against the applicant arising out of same dispute with regard to a company. He further submits that present applicant is the alleged Director of the company though he was working as an employee. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is aged 75 years and he was not involved in committing the aforesaid offence. The applicant is in jail since 01.08.2021. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submits that several FIRs were lodged against the present applicant and he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Dharnidhar Upadhyay involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the

¶12

satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 Ujjawal

¶20

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.09.23 17:01:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharnidhar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharnidhar Upadhyay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath @ Lavkush Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Sarvesh Kumar Agrahari Vs State of U.P.

Chunnu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept. of Home

Afroz Khan Alias Chunnu Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Prakash Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.