In a bail application under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC related to gold loan fraud, the High Court allowed bail requiring the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two local sureties.
Released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to specified conditions regarding court attendance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 90 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49961 of 2022 Applicant :- Bhupendra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey,Dinesh Chandra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard Mr. Rajesh Dutta Pandey and Mr. Dinesh Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Shravan Kumar Ojha, Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicantBhupendra Sharma with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 828 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report dated 20.12.2021 lodged by the Regional Manager of Canara Bank, Regional Office Mathura, against eight named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that the co-accused Hemendra Prakash Verma was authorised by the bank to test and evaluate gold and the other accused persons had applied for taking gold loan from the bank. The Gold hypothecated by them, was valued and certified by the co-accused Hemendra Prakash Verma. The loans were sanctioned during the period from July 2021 to September 2021. When the bank got a reappraiser of the gold, it came to light that the gold was fake.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and in fact, it is the applicant who is aggrieved by a fraud committed by the bank officials after the applicant had deposited his gold ornaments with the bank, which had been certified by the banks officials and by the Senior Manager of the bank.
Apart from the above, it is submitted that the co-accused, namely, Rajesh Agarwal, who has also obtained loan on the basis of such certificate issued by co-accused Hemendra Prakash Verma, has already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5th September, 2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25827 of 2022. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.
The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one and crime no. 172 of 2022 (Reference pargraph-14 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application) has subsequently lodged against the applicant. 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 25th July, 2022.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
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:-
(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.
(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.
(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.
(iv) 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 him in accordance with law.
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.
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
Order Date :- 9.11.2022
Sushil/-
Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.10 10:09:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶10
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Bhupendra Sharma
Shiv Shanker Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
