Allowed

Praveen Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022BAIL/18867/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to the applicant accused of cheating and forgery under various IPC sections, observing that allegations of false impersonation as an insurance agent were made out by the appointment letter issued to him on record.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditional restrictions.

Praveen Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18867 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Awadh Behari Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Awadh Behari Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District Bareilly during pendency of the trial before the court below.

¶7

On 15.07.2020, a first information report was lodged in Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly by the informant - Vikas Gupta, Regional Operational Manager, India First Life Insurance Company Ltd. alleging that the applicant Praveen Kumar Saxena had been appointed as an agent in India First Life Insurance Company Ltd. and he took charge of the said post on 11.06.2018. The F.I.R. further alleges that the applicant had issued four insurance policies within a period of one month, in all of which, the death benefit claims were raised within a period of 2 - 3 months and upon enquiry, the company found that in all the polices which were issued by the applicant, there were certain interpolation and fabrication and in fact, the insured person had died prior to issuance of policy or he was alive even at the time of raising of the death benefit claim.

¶8

The petitioner has annexed a copy of the offer - cum - appointment letter dated 11.06.2018 issued to him by India First Life Insurance Company Ltd. offering him appointment on the post of Business Development Manager - Agency in the grade of Senior Executive and the aforesaid offer letter specifically states that his duties are entirely supervisory / managerial in nature. The applicant has also annexed copies of the disputed insurance documents, which contain the name of the agent who had issued the policies to show that none of the said policies had been issued by the applicant.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that neither

¶10

the applicant was working as an agent of India First Life Insurance Company Ltd. nor had he issued any of the aforesaid four insurance policies and, therefore, it is apparent that all the allegations leveled against the applicant are false.

¶11

It is specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that without determining the liability under the aforesaid insurance policies, the applicant has been falsely implicated alleging him to be an agent of the company and in any case, nothing has been paid in furtherance of the aforesaid insurance policies and no loss has been occasioned to the Insurance Company. He has further submitted that there is no allegation of any intention to cheat since inception of the transactions. It has further been submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2022.

¶12

It is next submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶13

Per contra, the learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but he could not dispute the correctness of the material placed on record particularly the appointment letter of the applicant as well as the insurance policies, none of which has been issued by the applicant acting as an agent of the company.

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail pending conclusion of the trial.

¶15

Let the applicant- Praveen Kumar Saxena be released on bail in Case Crime No. 356 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount including at least one local surety to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

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

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of the bail before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.7.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶22

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.07.15 10:22:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Durgesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Satish Pal and 11 Others Vs Shiv Balak and Another

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration and 3 Others

Seema Devi Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Rajput Vs Union of India and 2 Others