Allowed

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022/4281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC, this court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving cheating and forgery, noting the lack of evidence connecting him to the offence and his lack of criminal antecedent.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court, subject to specific conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4281 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan,Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amrit Anand,Seema Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, Shri Amrit Anand, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0353 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, P.S. - Bihar, District - Unnao.

¶7

The counsel appearing for the applicant submits that as per the first information report, Rs.3,18,421/- is said to be duped by the present applicant by committing cheating and forgery. He next added that due to fault on the instance of the Bank Officers, the draft was prepared on the other address though the name of the informant was there. He added that the instant FIR has been lodged against the present applicant on the basis of apprehension that someone has committed forgery behind back of the informant.. He added that it is merely surmises and conjectures on the basis of which the first information report has been lodged and in fact there is no peace of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter. He added that the present applicant is neither beneficiary of any of the amount nor he was ever involved in committing any kind of offence. He next added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant which he has mentioned in para - 13 of the bail application. He further added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 20.01.2022. He submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the present applicant was involved in committing offence by using photocopy of the forged document and has tried to get the bank draft. He further added that the informant had apprehension that the present applicant was involved in committing offence, and as such he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the State has also supported the version of the informant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, after perusal of record, it reveals that the instant FIR has been lodged on the premise of apprehension; further the present applicant is not beneficiary of the amount which is said to be cheated; further there is no cogent peace of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter and the applicant has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in jail since 20.01.2022. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Virendra Kumar 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 satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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;

¶14

(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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.11.2022 KR

¶19

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.29 17:44:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Abhay Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dilshad Khan @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Saidu Khan Vs State of U.P.

Karan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another