Allowed

Manish Goenka and Another v. State of Up.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022BAIL/3010/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to NBDC servants Manish Goenka and Ashish Goenka involved in criminal breach of trust. Although implicated via major brothers statement against teapolicy maker, court held they made out case for bail citing Dataram Singh dicta on larger mandate of Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail furnishing personal bond and two sureties each subject to strict conditions of appearance and non-interference with witnesses and trial process.

Manish Goenka and Another Vs State of Up. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3010 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Goenka And Another Opposite Party :- State Of Up. Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Tandon,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyendra Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shishir Tandon, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, Sri Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation in the FIR that the informant is the wholesale dealer of tea. His firm has supplied tea to the accused business establishments named in the FIR and they have not paid the amount due for the tea supplied. There was no allegation against the applicant in the FIR. In the majeed bayan of the informant, he stated that he had employed the applicants in his firm and they have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust by manipulating the accounts. They have misappropriated considerable amount of money of the informant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the FIR there is no allegation made against the applicants. They have been implicated in this case on the basis of majeed bayan of the informant. The applicants are real brothers and close relatives of the informant. The applicant no. 1 invested in the firm of the informant and outstanding amount is Rs. 12,63,269/-. Similarly the applicant no. 2 is entitled to outstanding amount of Rs. 26,67,535/- and when they demanded the aforesaid amount totaling to Rs. 39,30,804/- it was not paid by the informant. They filed complaint cases against the informant and sent legal notice on 10.2.2021. By way of counterblast they have been falsely implicated in this case, FIR whereof was lodged on 12.06.2021. The applicants are in jail since 13.12.2021 and they have no criminal history to their credits.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant has filed a detailed counter affidavit bringing on record the details of the accounts and the money allegedly misappropriated by the applicants. It has been admitted in the counter affidavit in paragraph 44 that the applicants have filed four criminal complaints against the informant.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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 the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicants, Manish Goenka and Ashish Goenka, involved in Case Crime No. 68 of 2021, under Sections- 420, 408, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, Police Station- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar, be released on bail on their 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

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶13

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶14

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) The applicants 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 absence of the

¶17

applicants are 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 against them in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2022 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.07.27 17:18:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Goenka and Another v. State of Up.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Goenka and Another v. State of Up.

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

Mohd. Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Karmveer Panchal Vs State of U.P.

Zhu Xiao Juan Vs State of U.P.

Manvendra Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Alias Ramgopal and Another Vs State of U.P.