High Court granted bail to Vivek Tripathi in a cheating and forgery case, noting lack of evidence that he received money and his lack of employment role in the implicated company.
Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42100 of 2021
Applicant :- Vivek Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Malay Prasad
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Malay Prasad, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 1095 of 2015, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District - Kanpur Nagar.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next submits that applicant is neither the employee of the company nor he has any concern with the affairs of the company and being brother of co-accused Anand Tripathi, he has been implicated in the instant matter. He next submits that for the one incident several FIRs were lodged against the present applicant. He next submits that he has played no role in this matter and he has not collected any amount from anyone. He next submits that co-accused persons namely Smt. Ramwati Awasthi and Anand Tripathi have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 15711 of 2016 and 49292 of 2021, vide orders dated 23.09.2016 and 07.01.2022. He next submits that applicant was not involved in committing the aforesaid offence. He further submits that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in rejoinder affidavit. He next submits that infact the applicant has no role to play and he has only been implicated with a view to make pressure over Anand Tripathi the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2016. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.G.A. have opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was named in the FIR and he was involved in committing the aforesaid offence. He further submits that the present applicant has received payment from the informant in fake names and firms and misrepresented that those were in so far as of Biomass Research Company and misappropriated huge amount. He next submits that several cases were registered against the applicant and another co-accused persons and the present applicant is actively involved in cheating and forgery. He is also beneficiary of the aforesaid cheating.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that there is nothing on record that present applicant has received any amount from the informant and there seems to be mere allegation of the same, further he is neither Director of the company nor he is any way employee of the company and he being a relative of one co-accused Anand Tripathi implicated in the instant case, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 19.07.2016, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant- Vivek Tripathi involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;
(3) 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.; and
(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 24.2.2022 Ujjawal
Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.03.05 18:15:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case for bail considering he is a relative of a co-accused and has languished in jail.
Whether there is sufficient evidence on record to prevent the grant of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶12
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Vivek Tripathi
State of U.P.
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SHREE PRAKASH SINGH
Parties & counsel
