The High Court allowed the bail application of Vinod Kumar Sharma, accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court relied on Satendra Kumar Antil and emphasized the need for speedy trial.
Release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties, verified before issuance of the order.
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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42501 of 2022
Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi,Abhay Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
First bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Vinod Kumar Sharma with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.320 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Bisauli, District Badaun during pendency of the trial.
It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant was employed in informant's company as field manager and distributed loan amount to various persons and liability over the applicant to recover the amount but applicant after recover the amount from the loan holders did not deposit the recovered amount in the company. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, applicant challenged FIR before this Court by filing Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.6975 of 2012 (Gajendra Pal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. & others) and by order dated 5.6.2012 stayed the arrest of the petitioners till submission of the charge-sheet. It is next argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was not employed as field manager or agent in the company and has no concerned with distribution of loan amount as well as recovery of loan amount. Applicant employed in the office to do work of clerical job and there is no evidence that applicant has embezzled the amount, as alleged in the FIR. 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 23.04.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and argued that the applicant is field manager and has embezzled the amount of the company and applicant should not be granted bail.
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, 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.
Let the applicant, Vinod Kumar Sharma, 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022 SKD
Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.12.21 11:37:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution considering the nature of the offence and circumstances of the case.
Whether the applicant, accused of embezzlement, has made out a prima facie case for bail despite allegations of field manager duties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & AnotherExplained¶10
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
Vinod Kumar Sharma
State of U.P.
Deepak Verma
Surjit Kumar Dey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
