Allowed

Montu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2022BAIL/47950/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowing the release of the applicant on bail in an F.I.R. alleging forgery of cheques and inducement for employment. The court held the applicant entitled to bail after co-accused were released and the cheque forgery details were scrutinized.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

Montu Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47950 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Montu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,Birendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 431 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Etmadaula, District Agra during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 20.07.2022 alleging that one Vikram Baghel had introduced the informant to the applicant and co-accused Ravi Parolia and he induced the informant to get employment through them by paying some money. It is alleged that a Sub Inspector of Police also endorsed the applicant and co-accused Ravi Parolia . The F.I.R. further mentions that the applicant had handed over four cheques each of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the informant but the Bank reported that the cheques were forged. The F.I.R. further alleges that the applicant had assured that he would return the money in instalments but when he did not pay the money, the F.I.R. in question has been lodged.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has no criminal history.

¶10

The four cheques mentioned in the F.I.R. have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, one of the cheques for Rs. 3,00,000/- has been issued in the name of Kamla Devi and the other three cheques are blank and those merely contains signatures of the applicant. The applicant's involvement in Case Crime No. 500 of 2020 under

¶11

Section 307 IPC, Police Station Etmaddaula, District Agra has been disclosed in the affidavit and the applicant has been granted bail in the aforesaid case by means of an order dated 02.11.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35089 of 2020.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused Vikram @ Neeraj Kumar and Ravi Parolia have already been granted bail by means of orders dated 18.10.2022 and 07.12.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46494 of 2022 and 52678 of 2022.

¶13

The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2022.

¶14

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the grievance of the informant appears to be that his attempt to secure an employment by paying bribe had failed; that it is alleged that the applicant had handed over four cheques for refunding the amount paid as bribe, none of the cheques has been issued in the name of the informant and that co-accused Vikram @ Neeraj Kumar and Ravi Parolia have already been granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Montu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 431 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Etmadaula, District Agra on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶22

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.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.12.2022 Jaswant

¶25

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.12 15:06:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Montu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Montu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Priya Ranjan Vs State of U.P.

Lukman @ Usman Vs State of U.P.

Faeem Vs State of U.P.

Durga Prasad Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Parmeet Vs State of U.P.