Allowed

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022BAIL/46758/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail for Praveen Kumar, a nominated accused in a cheating case involving fraudulent lottery, noting he is not named in the FIR, has no criminal history, and the case involves fraudulent inducement of Rs. 2,50,000. The court emphasized jail overcrowding during the pandemic as a relevant circumstance. Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Praveen Kumar released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions of trial presence, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46758 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Pandey,Araf Khan,Sonakshi Arora,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Araf Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2021 under Section 420 I.P.C. and section 66-D of Information and Technology Amendment Act registered at Police Station Tappal, District- Aligarh.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 20.09.2021.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR has been lodged by one Awatar Sing before Police Station Tappal, Aligarh being FIR No. 0341 of 2021 on 06.08.2021 at 13:12 hours under the above noted sections relatable to the commission of the offence that on 22.07.2021 against the applicant and one unknown person with an allegation that the nominated accused along with unnamed accused allured the complainant by calling on different mobile numbers that the complainant has been awarded with an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs purported to a lottery and thereafter OTP was sent to him and thereafter, he was duped to the tune of Rs. 2,50000/- Lakhs. He further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the recovery of cash, 48 pass books, 6 ATM cards is forged and planted one and he at no point of time committed the offence and there was no independent witness of the said recovery. He further drawn the attention of the court towards page no. 25 of the bail application so as to contend that the applicant is resident of village Alapur Palwal, Haryana 121102 and he has further referred to page no. 27 so as to contend that he has been issued a character verification certificate showing the aforesaid residency. He further drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph no. 21 so as to contend that he does not possess any criminal history. He further drawn the attention of the court towards the order dated

¶9

05.03.2022 which has been produced before the court passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 53439/2021 (Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) wherein in the nominated accused has been enlarged on bail the order is quoted herein below:-

¶10

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 341 of 2021, under Section 420 IPC & 66D I.T. Act, P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation against the applicant is that fraudulently he took Rs.2,50,000/- from the informant for providing him lottery. He further submits that he is ready to return the amount in the account of informant. He also submits that applicant has no criminal history. He next submits that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A.has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by submitting that if applicant is ready to return the amount, his bail may be considered.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, readiness of the applicant to return the amount and perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant -Praveen Kumar 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:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall return the entire amount of the informant within one month from the date of release.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian

¶19

Penal Code.

¶20

(v) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is 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 her in accordance with law."

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant has thus argued that the applicant is unnecessary languishing in jail since 07.08.2021 and if the accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶22

Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant was nominated in the FIR but recovery of incriminating article including the 48 pass books and 6 ATMs from him however he should not be disputed the fact that he does not posses any criminal history.

¶23

Considering the submission 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 the applicant is not named in the FIR and he does not possess any criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.08.2021 and looking into the nature of the 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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Let the applicant Praveen Kumar involved in aforesaid 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 that :-

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 Nisha

¶35

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.03.11 17:46:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar 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

Shakil @ Khunti Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh @ David Vs State of U.P.

Umardaraj@ Kala Vs State of U.P.

Pushpa Vs State of U.P.

Ravikant Vs State of U.P.

Iliyas Ansari Vs State of U.P.