Allowed

Ankit Kumar Yadav v. State Of U. P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2022BAIL/2418/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application for an accused in an IT Act and cheating case involving fraudulent fund withdrawal. Despite prosecution arguments regarding SIM port changes, the court found no evidence of SIM misuse and granted bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to verification and strict conditions to ensure trial participation and non-interference.

Ankit Kumar Yadav Vs State Of U. P. Through Principal… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2418 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Yadav

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U. P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kailash Nath Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri K.N. Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ankit Kumar Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 197 of 2021, under Section 420 IPC Section 66-C and 66-D of Information Technology Act-2008 Police Station Line Bazar, District- Jaunpur, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There is allegation in the First Information Report that the father of the informant had sold his agricultural land for an amount of Rs. 62 lac.He was suffering from cancer and under treatment.The informant,who is his son, went to the bank on 16.8.2021 for withdrawing the money, where he came to known that RS.12,00,000,/- has been fraudulently withdrawn from account of his father. The First Information Report in this regard was lodged on 24.8.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report.There is no allegation in the First Information Report that mobile phone number from which the alleged transaction of purchasing gold was done at Mumbai did not belonged to the informant's father.The mobile phone was always with the father of the informant and in case any

¶11

transaction was made through the mobile phone of the informant's father the message of transaction must have come on his mobile phone.There is no allegation that sim of the mobile phone was lost or has been misused.The son of the informant himself misused the mobile phone and misused the money of his father.The name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement of the Prince Kumar Yadav and Sherya Maurya. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that in this case earlier Sim in the mobile no. 9984811746 of the father of the informant was of Airtel Company which was ported to Jio Company, thereafter disputed transaction had taken place. Due to change in mobile service provider, the message of transaction had not come in the mobile phone of father of the informant.

¶13

After considering the rival contentions, this court finds that by mere change of service provider the message and calls are not stopped on the mobile phone. All services continue on the registered mobile number. In this case the mobile number was not changed nor mobile phone was lost.Therefore transaction was done by the informant or his father. There is no such allegation made in the First Information Report that the sim card of mobile phone of father of informant was ever changed or misused.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of

¶15

the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶21

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶22

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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat

¶23

such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

The observations made in order are only tentative and will not prejudice the trial of the applicant.

¶27

Order Date :- 14.7.2022 Atul kr. sri.

¶28

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.15 18:19:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Kumar Yadav v. State Of U. P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kumar Yadav v. State Of U. P. Through Principal Secretary, Home Department

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

Madhav Bhoi Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Sharma @ Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Arshad Vs State of U.P.

Nutan Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Shera @ Sahrukh Vs State of U.P.

Sikandar Vs State of U.P.