Allowed

Haridwar Mauyra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022BAIL/38220/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Haridwar Mauyra in a case involving cheating and forgery charges. The court prioritized the delay in the FIR and the bail of a co-accused witness who was also a witness to the sale deed execution.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to standard conditions of not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38220 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Haridwar Mauyra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Parvat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahboob Ahmad Siddiqui

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Parvat Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Mahboob Ahmad Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0221 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged on 05.06.2022 alleging that during the period 24.04.2019 and 17.04.2021, the informant was serving in Saudi Arabia. During his absence on 16.06.2020, his land was sold away by putting up the co-accused Harish Chandra as his imposter and the applicant and co-accused Suresh Maurya were witnesses to the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed has been executed in favour of another coaccused Vijay Mati @ Mala.

¶8

4.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 03.07.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶9

5.The informant has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayer for grant of bail.

¶10

6.A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in Case Crime No. 165 of 2021, under Section 406, 471, 468, 467, 420 and 419 IPC, P.S. Kopaganj, District Mau, in which he has been granted bail by

¶11

means of order dated 12.08.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29819 of 2021. It has further been stated in the rejoinder affidavit that one of the other co-accused persons Suresh Maurya, who is also a witness to the execution of the sale deed in question, has been granted bail in the present case by means of an order dated 04.11.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46542 of 2022.

¶12

7.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

8.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the sale deed was executed on 16.06.2020 and the informant claims to have acquired knowledge of the execution of the sale deed when he returned from Saudi Arabia on on 17.04.2021, yet the FIR has been filed on 05.06.2022 and there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR; that the applicant was a witness to execution of the sale deed and the other witness Suresh Maurya has already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶14

9.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

10.Let the applicant Haridwar Mauyra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0221 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

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

¶21

12.Since the instant application has been decided, let Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7592 of 2022 be delinked and be listed as fresh in the next week.

¶22

Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶23

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.12.02 18:48:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haridwar Mauyra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridwar Mauyra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Mahfooz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P.

Anand Nishad @ Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Abhimanyu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others