Allowed

Amit v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022BAIL/4411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail application under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant, Amit, faced charges of cheating and forgery. The court allowed bail citing jail overcrowding, co-accused liberation, and sufficient explanation of criminal history, directing the petitioner to furnish a surety of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with personal bond and heavy surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4411 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This is an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of applicant Amit for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.700 of 2021, under Sections 411, 414, 482, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. registered at Police StationSector 58, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 07.12.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by the SHO Sri Anil Kumar before police station NOIDA, Sector-58, District Gautam Budh Nagar on 25.07.2021 in the above noted sections against the applicant and two others wherein joint recovery of mobile phones and 17 vehicles were shown. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question and he has not committed the said offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that recovery of 17 four wheelers is a planted one as form the information of the first information report, two mobile phones were shown to be in possession of the applicant. He further submits that there was no independent witness themselves who could see the recovery of the mobile phone from the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that his name has been unnecessarily roped in.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court towards the supplementary affidavit dated 19.01.2022 and 02.03.2022 in order to buttress his submission with respect to the fact that so far as Case Crime No. 700 of 2021 is concerned, the same is the present case and similarly Case Crime No. 237 of 2020 is concerned, the applicant has been bailed out by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the proceedings in Crl.-M-40325 of

¶11

2020 on 14.01.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court towards the fact that so far as Case Crime No. 263 of 2020 is concerned, the applicant has been bailed out by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Bail Application No. 64 on 18.02.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention towards order dated 25.01.2021 passed by MM-08/WEST, THC wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 26071 of 2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention towards the proceedings in Case Crime No. 027272 of 2019 in which he has been bailed out on 17.04.2021 in Bail Application No. 1392 of 2021 by ASJ(FTSC) (POCSO)-01 South West Dwarka, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention towards the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Court of A.C.M.M.(North), Rohini whereby the applicant has been enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 15123 of 2019 followed by order dated 08.02.2021 passed by A.C.M.M.(North), Rohini Court enlarging the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 36722 of 2018. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to the order dated 23.11.2013 passed by Judge, Nationals Lok Adalat wherein the offences have been compounded in FIR No. 51 of 2009 and the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by M.M.-08 in FIR No. 51 of 2019 followed by order dated 13.08.2012 passed by M.M. (SD), Delhi in FIR No. 67 of 2009. In addition to the argument of learned counsel for the applicant to the extent that he has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and further he is languishing in jail since 25.07.2021, he also submits that coaccused persons Ajmer and Sandeep have been enlarged on bail on 15.02.2022 and 18.02.2022 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46193 of 2021 and 52567 of 2021 respectively and thus, the applicant is entitled to be released in parity.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further made a submission at Bar that as per the instructions so received telephonically from his client that his client has instructed him to make a statement before the Court that he is ready to furnish surety of Rs. 100,000/-.

¶13

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail, however, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and that two mobile phones were sought to be recovered from the applicant and further the fact that 17 vehicles were shown to be in joint possession. Learned A.G.A. has further argued that in the wake of various criminal cases pending against the applicant, the applicant, in case furnishes the surety of Rs. 100,000/-then he may be allowed to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, prima facie, this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and the applicant has explained the criminal history, looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶15

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020 , Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶16

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant-Amit involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and heavy surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the following conditions that :-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

(vi) The trial court concerned shall expedite the trial and the same shall be conducted on day-to-day basis as early as possible, preferably within a period of a year, without any unnecessary delay.

¶24

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

¶25

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶27

Order Date :- 2.3.2022 Madhurima

¶28

Digitally signed by MADHURIMA GARG Date: 2022.03.04 11:17:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sufiyan Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Ankur @ Sonu Verma @ Ankush @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Akeel Vs State of U.P.

Mukhlal Vs State of U.P.