Allowed

Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022/8446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal, accused of cheating and forgery, was allowed. The High Court considered the civil dispute setlement and lack of prior criminal history, granting bail on personal and surety bonds with strict conditions to ensure presence in court and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8446 of 2022 Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Chandra Sinha,Akash Mishra,Akhand Pratap Singh

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sharad Nandan Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi-I, 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. 24 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S.- Fatanpur, District - Pratapgarh.

¶7

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 next submits that initially an FIR was lodged under certain misconception and there was no any criminal intent of the applicant to commit offence as has been mentioned in the FIR. He also added that matter pertains to a civil dispute between the parties and that was given colour of criminality. He next added that in Civil Suit No. 307 of 2020 (Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. Kanhaiya Lal) wherein the informant and present applicant are the parties, the matter was settled and compromise decree was also passed by the court concerned. During the course of argument he has drawn attention toward page 20 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.10.2022 and has demonstrated that the issue has been settled between the parties. He further submits that there is no any other criminal history of the applicant except the present case. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 28 of the bail application that applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 20.06.2022. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, Sri S.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer of bail and submits that dispute has been accorded with the condition aforesaid and submits that a dispute has been settled between the parties and compromise decree has also been passed by the civil court.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of

¶10

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- Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal 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 :- 14.11.2022 Ujjawal

¶19

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.11.17 16:48:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ramfer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Hari Bhajan Vs State of Up Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Jaysurya @ Rohit Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arvind Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Dep.Lko.

Vishal Pal @ Goldi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Veer Pratap Singh @ Ruddra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.