Shatrughan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 90

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47150 of 2022

Applicant :- Shatrughan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh,Nishant Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, Mr. N.K. Singh and Mr. R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Shatrughan Singh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 38 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Mubarakpur, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

The first information report has been lodged by the informant, who claims to be legal officer of the concerned company against the applicant. It is alleged in the first information report that T.V.S. Credit Services Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act of which regional office is running at District Varanasi, which provided loan for vehicles. In the said company the applicant was working as Field Collection Executive. The applicant had been allotted work for recovery from the customers. It is further alleged that the applicant recovered money of Rs. 1,63,273/- from eight customers but the same has not been deposited in the account of the company within the time prescribed. It is further alleged that during investigation, Rs. 38,930/- recovered from three customers has not been deposited in the company account. In the first information report it has also been alleged that an application has been made from one of the customer Santosh Kumari alleging therein that she has got forged receipts of the amount which has been supplied by the applicant.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that since certain amount of applicant towards incentive has not been paid to him, he moved an application through e-mail before the Company that he was not interested to continue his job in that company, which has not been accepted and due to the aforesaid resignation, the false and concocted story has been set up against the applicant by lodging the present first information report. It is further submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., one of the customer, namely, Santosh Kumari has stated that she has not been received any receipt by the applicant, which makes the entire

¶9

prosecution story doubtful. It is also submitted that statements of other two customers, from whom it is alleged that their money have not been deposited by the applicant, are not on record. The applicant has never committed any misrepresentation or fraud nor created any forged documents to show the false deposit of money either in the aforesaid company or any customer, as such the entire allegations made by the prosecution are wholly baseless and not sustainable. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended 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. The applicant is in jail since 5th September, 2022.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but they could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, 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 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. 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 applicant 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.

¶14

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial

¶16

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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are 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 :- 19.11.2022 Sushil/-

¶20

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.22 10:24:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shatrughan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatrughan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aleem Vs State of U.P.

Jeeshan @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Daulat Vs State of U.P.

Akash Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Satyam Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Hari Mohan @ Tunda Vs State of U.P.