Allowed

Lucky v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2022/5914/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for applicant Lucky in a cheating and forgery case involving multiple FIRs. Acknowledging prior bail for co-accused and the applicant's lack of criminal history, the court ordered release on personal bond and sureties without deciding on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with specific conditions.

Lucky Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5914 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lucky Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar,Shivendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶6

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 Case Crime No. 913 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471, 411, 120B I.P.C. & 66 (D) I.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. For similar offence, three F.I.Rs. were lodged bearing Case Crime Nos. 911 of 2021, 912 of 2021 and 913 of 2021 (instant F.I.R.). Main allegation is against one Shahid Anwar, who is said to be the key player of the offence aforesaid. Accused Shahid Anwar has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2360 of 2022, vide order dated 2.8.2022. The applicant has also been enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 911 of 2021 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3370 of 2022, vide order dated 25.5.2022. He is seeking parity of the orders aforesaid. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in paras 22 and 24 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 2.12.2021. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and he has cheated the informant, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, but he does not dispute this fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that three F.I.Rs. were lodged against the present applicant for committing similar offence; in Case Crime Nos.911 of 2021, 912 of 2021, the applicant himself has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court; one Shahid Anwar, who is said to be the key player of the offence, has also been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 24 of the bail application; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; and he is languishing in jail since 2.12.2021.

¶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 Lucky 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 :- 20.10.2022 S. Shivhare

¶19

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.10.22 11:12:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lucky v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucky 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home Lko.

Kanhaiya Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Mohd. Akku Vs State of U.P.

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shubham Gupta @ Bhola Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.