Allowed

Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022/9258/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving impersonation and forgery. The application was allowed after considering relevant Supreme Court precedents, though the court explicitly declined to express an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, seeking adjournments, and remaining present in court.

Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9258 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Anita,Ganesh Kumar Gupta,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Hari Shankar Bajpai 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 Soni @ Pepsi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Mall, District- Lucknow, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 18.04.2015 has been lodged against three named persons including the present applicant stating that one unknown person has executed a saledeed of maternal uncle of first informant to co-accused, Ram Dayal vide registered sale-deed dated 18.10.2014 by impersonation. The real owner of agricultural land, Shiv Das had died in the year 1957. The co-accused, Ram Kumar and Ram Ratan are marginal witness of the alleged sale-deed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2021. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case and as per the charge-sheet, there is no witness of the Sub-Registrar office. It is further submitted that the co-accused, Ram Dayal, purchaser and witness, Ram Ratan are granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail No. 9083 of 2016 and Bail

¶9

No. 5732 of 2016 vide order dated 20.12.2016 and 11.07.2016 respectivelly.

¶10

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 22.03.2021 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.

¶11

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. 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 .

¶14

Let applicant, Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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:

¶15

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Anurag, APS

¶28

Digitally signed by ANURAG SINGH Date: 2022.09.12 11:41:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi v. State of U.P.

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

Modh. Ajju Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Deptt.of Home Lko.and Another

Nisabu @ Nisabuddin Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

Maqsood Vs State of U.P.

Taukeer @ Mirchi Vs State of U.P.

Parvati Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.