Allowed

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2022/68/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to the applicant, Anil Kumar Yadav, charged with cheating and forgery. The court imposed conditions including repayment of funds within four months and adhering to trial attendance, finding it fit to release the applicant on a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to repay accused funds within four months and appear in the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 68 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned A.G.A. 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. 474 of 2020, under Sections 420, 409, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120B IPC, P.S.Gomtinagar, District - Lucknow.

¶7

As per version of FIR, huge amount is said to be duped by the present applicant of the informant and the other persons.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further added that present applicant was working as agent in the company as he is neither Director nor any signatory authority. He added that Directors of the company had fled away after closing the company and, as such, the local persons started lodging FIR against the employees and agents of the company. He added that in fact certain amounts i.e., Rs. 10 lakhs which has been in credited in the account of the informant and other persons. The present applicant is ready to repay the same to the informant and other concern persons within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 27 of the bail application that applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 21.10.2021. 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. opposed the prayer of bail but submits that present applicant was working as agent in the company namely Sun Shine and, as such, his role is distinguishable from the role of Director and Promoter of the company. He added that Rs. 10 lakhs have been credited in the account of the present applicant and, as such, he has duped the

¶10

aforesaid amount and he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is an admitted fact that present applicant is an agent of the company namely Sun Shine; further certain amount about Rs. 10 lakhs were credited in the account of the applicant for which he is ready to pay back to the concerned persons/investors within a period of four months from the date of his release from jail; further there is no other criminal history against the applicant; coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 21.10.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Anil Kumar Yadav 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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall pay back the amount which were incredited in the account of present applicant to the informant and the other concerned persons within a period of four months from the date of his release from jail.

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) 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;

¶16

(iv) 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

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.9.2022 Ujjawal

¶22

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.09.28 10:22:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

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

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

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

Afroz Khan Alias Chunnu Vs State of U.P.

Akram Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Sandeep Pasi @ Chirraiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.