Allowed

Manoj Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2022/7794/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ThisHigh Court allowed a bail application filed by Manoj Kumar Gautam in a cheating case involving forged appointment letters. The court relied on settled principles regarding bail factors, noting the serious nature of allegations, accused's prior history, and reasonable fear of witness tampering, while imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions recording presence at trial proceedings and not tampering with witnesses.

Manoj Kumar Gautam 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. - 7794 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Manoj Kumar Gautam under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 324 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, DistrictBalrampur, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

As per the allegation of the first information report dated 13.12.2021, which has been lodged against co-accused Chandra Prakash and Ashish Shukla, had assured to get the first informant appointed as Conductor in UPSRTC for Rs.1,50,000/-, out of which the informant paid Rs. 49,000/- to the accused persons to provide a service as Conductor in U.P. Roadways and an appointment letter has been provided to the first informant. On finding the said appointment letter is found forged appointment letter.

¶8

It is further submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted applicant is not named in the first information report. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced on the confessional statement of co-accused Chandra Prakash and Ashish Shukla, who have been arrested on 15.12.2021. It is further submitted that Artis Facility Management Private Limited, is a service provider company and the applicant is an employee of the company and without any basis he has been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has criminal history of two cases, in which he has been granted bail and one case hearing is pending.

¶9

It is further submitted that co-accused Chandra Prakash having similar role has already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1187 of 2022. It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to his credit except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 22.11.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶12

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant, Manoj Kumar Gautam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant 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 in accordance with law.

¶21

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶22

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶24

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.8.2022 Ishan

¶26

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.08.30 13:36:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Gautam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Purushottam Kesarwani @ Bauwa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bhupendra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jaswant Singh @ Bagga Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Harishyam Bajpayee Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another