Allowed

Monu Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2022BAIL/44746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to applicants Monu Kumar and Anil Kumar in a cheating case involving ATM card misuse, conditioning release on furnishing bonds and adhering to strict attendance obligations during trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to specified conditions.

Monu Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44746 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. A.Z. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Shravan Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants-Monu Kumar and Anil Kumar, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 260 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411, 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

The prosecution case is that on 15th March, 2022 at about 19.14 hrs. (night) the informant had went to the A.T.M. room for withdrawing some money and at the A.T.M. room some boys had taken his ATM card to clean the chip of the said A.T.M. card as the same was not working and they have given some another ATM card to him. Thereafter the informant went to the Union Bank of India and when he was using the said card to withdraw some mony, same two boys came and saw the PIN number which he has feeded while using the said card. Thereafter when the informant came back to his house, he has received a message on his mobile phone that Rs. 50,000/- has been withdrawn from his account. After lodging the first information report, the Investigating officer has proceeded with the investigation and on the very day i.e. 9th May, 2022, on the information given by a Police Informer, the Investigating Officer has arrested five persons including the applicants from a car and allegedly 24 A.T.M. cards and 16,000/have been recovered from the pockets of the applicants.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. For the alleged incident dated 15th March, 2022, the present first information report has been lodged on 5th May, 2022 i.e. after 50 days delay from the date of incident, for which no plausible explanation has been given, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. The alleged recovery of A.T.M. cards from the possession of the applicants are planted by the Police as there is no independent or public witness of the said recovery. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record from which can be said that the A.T.M. card which has been exchanged from the informant is one of the same, which have recovered from the

¶9

applicants. No CCTV footage of the A.T.M. room in question was obtained by the Investigating Officer to identify the accused. The applicants have subsequent criminal antecedents of five cases to their credit except the present one but the same have satisfactorily been explained in paragraph-10 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 10th May, 2022.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused-applicants, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicants 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. 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their , without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

(iv) 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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are

¶17

strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 1.12.2022

¶20

Sushil/-

¶21

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.02 09:33:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu Kumar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Kumar and Another 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

Shakeel Vs State of U.P.

Amitesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Alias Lalla Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Belal Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P.