Allowed

Mohatram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022BAIL/22422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for the applicant Mohatram charged under Sections 420, 504, 506, and 120-B IPC. Relied on Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. The applicant, implicating false charges regarding a property dispute, was granted bail on bond and sureties with specific conditions to prevent tampering and ensure cooperation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Mohatram is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to depositing Rs. 2,00,000/- with the informant.

Mohatram Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22422 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohatram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey,Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Sunil Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Mohatram with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.318 of 2021, under Sections 420, 504, 506 & 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Janakpuri, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is alleged in the FIR that owner of the disputed property executed agreement to sale in favour of informant and took Rs.15 lakhs as advance and not executed sale deed in favour of informant. When the first informant asked to return the advanced money, the same was refused, then the first informant through application under section 156(3) lodged present FIR. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant has no concerned with the present case and applicant is not owner of the disputed property. Applicant is witness in the agreement to sale, on that account, he has been implicated in the present case. It is next argued that co-accused Sabbir has returned Rs.2 lacs to informant by cash. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 14 of the affidavit of bail application. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.04.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the facts narrated by counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India,

¶10

Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Mohatram, who is involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

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

¶15

4. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- given to informant would not effect the case of the applicant during trial.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 SKD

¶18

Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.12.14 17:34:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohatram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohatram 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

Yatendra Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Talib Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Prasad Gaud Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saida Begum Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shamshad Vs State of U.P.