Court granted bail to applicant in a cheating/forgery case, citing parity with bailed co-accused and need to factor jail overcrowding during the pandemic without deciding on merits.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions regarding tampering, cooperation, and refraining from further crimes.
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. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54192 of 2021
Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Alias Vijay Shekhawat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 571 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 411, 409, 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Phase-III, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 29.11.2021.
The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR was got registered by one Anil Kishore Negi before Police Station Phase-III, Gautam Budh Nagar being FIR No. 0571 on 12.08.2020 at 18:32 hours under the abovenoted sections against the applicant and eight others relatable to the fact that the complainant was duped as he wanted to start an agency and the applicant has only facilitated by virtue of his own effort so as to maintain good cordial of the complainant with the company in question and the applicant was neither director nor any decision making authority. He further argued while referring to paragraph no. 17 of the bail application so as to contend that there are criminal history of eight cases which has been lodged as off shoot of the present FIR. He further argued that the co-accused Manish Kmar Dahiya has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.08.2021 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 830-837 of 2021 (Manish Kumar Dahiya Vs. State of U.P.) whereby the coaccused shown as the director of the company in question. The bail order is quoted hereinbelow:-
"Leave Granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The case of the appellant is that he is actually a fitness trainer and documents so obtained from him were being used as a name lender to operate account and carry out the alleged crime. It is also his submission that for the account where he is shown as a Director, he does not have any authorisation to operate the accounts. The CDR of the appellant's mobile number related to the company was obtained and on investigation no relation of the appellant is found with the employees working in the company and taking the franchises of the company (Page No. 66).
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the material placed before us, we are inclined to enlarged the appellant on bail on terms and conditions to the satisfactions of the trial court. Needless to say that the appellant will continue to join the investigation and render all assistance.
These appeals are disposed of accordingly."
The learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that the co-accused Manish Kumar Dahiya has already been bailed out, therefore, applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 22.08.2020.
Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed the offence but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and the co-accused has been enlarged on bail.
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 has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and the co-accused has aready been bailed out 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.
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.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Sunil Kumar Alias Vijay Shekhawat 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 :-
(i). The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii). The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii). The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(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.
(v). In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
(vi). Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.
Order Date :- 22.2.2022 Nisha
Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.03.02 14:42:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the co-accused has been released and the nature of the offence.
Whether parity with a co-accused permits enlargement on bail in the present case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Alias Vijay Shekhawat
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
