Allowed

Vinod Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2022/7138/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7138 of 2022, the Court allowed bail for applicants Vinod Tiwari and Ram Naresh @ Ramesh alleged of cheating and forgery, invoking Article 21 and Dataram Singh dictum, granting relief subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to verifying sureties and complying with specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

Vinod Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7138 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Tiwari And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Pandey,Anjana Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Anjana Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Dr. Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicants seek bail in Criminal Case No. 1872 of 2021, Case Crime No. 257 of 2021, U/S 406, 507 IPC, Police StationPurwa, District- Unnao, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per the allegations in the FIR, the applicant and other coaccused persons are said to have duped the first informant to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- on the pretext of providing him a post of Mahila Adhyaksh in National Human Rights Commission. The applicant and other persons are also stated to have taken Rs. 50,000/- for proceeding against her neighbour, Arun Gupta, who is said to have disputed over some drain issue on 12.2.2021. The applicant no. 2-Ram Naresh @ Ramesh is said to have returned Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant, but the remaining amount remains due.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. Learned counsel has stated that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Not a single penny has been transferred to his account. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants are languishing in jail since 21.5.2022, having no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they 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 applicants.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the

¶11

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 applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants- Vinod Tiwari and Ram Naresh @ Ramesh, who are involved in aforementioned be released on bail on their 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.

¶13

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them 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 applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming their independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.7.2022 Shalini

¶20

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.07.13 17:44:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Tiwari and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

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

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

Chotelal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secrty. Home and Another

Sushil Kumar Shah @ Sushil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another