Allowed

Meenu Sain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2022BAIL/5865/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to Meenu Sain, an accused in a trial involving Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, and 120-B IPC. The court relied on an alleged settlement between the applicant and the informant and a coordinate bench order, allowing release subject to conditions and the possibility of cancellation if the settlement is breached.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Meenu Sain released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding tampering and trial conduct.

Meenu Sain Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5865 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Meenu Sain

¶4

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shadab Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Shadab Alam, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicantMeenu Sain for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 558/2019, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kasna/ Beta-2, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that the allegations of the FIR has not been investigated by the Investigating Officer in right perspective, while during the course of investigation a settlement had arrived between the applicant and the informant i.e. Mithilesh Kumari and a copy of the same was provided to Investigating Officer, however, the Investigating Officer without considering the compromise proceeded to submit a charge sheet against the applicant ignoring the settlement arrived between the informant and the applicant.

¶11

It is further submitted that since the dispute between the applicant and the informant has been settled and the same has also been reduced in to writing, a copy of which has been placed at page no. 31 of the paper book, the informant is now no more aggrieved and the culpability of the applicant could only be determined in the trial.

¶12

It is also submitted that in the case of similar nature a Coordinate Bench of this Court considered the settlement arrived at between the informant of the case and the applicant and granted bail to the applicant by passing an order dated 17.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5053

¶13

of 2022.

¶14

It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 12.9.2021. Charge sheet has already been filed and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶15

It is further submitted that though a criminal history of 15 cases is being alleged against the applicant, however, all these cases are of the similar nature and the applicant is trying hard to settle these cases with the informant and the victims.

¶16

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand submits that the applicant is having a long criminal history and having regard to the seriousness of the offences alleged against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that a copy of the settlement deed, allegedly arrived at between the informant and the instant applicant, has been placed on record at page no. 31 of the paper book and the same has been made the basis for granting bail to the applicant. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the informant of this case, namely, Mithilesh Kumari had willingly invested some money in the company of the husband of the applicant, namely, Anil Sain and there was no element of wrongful gain or wrongful loss. It has been further submitted with force that since the matter has been settled between the parties and the veracity of the allegations could only be determined during the course of the trial and the offence alleged against the applicant are triable by Magistrate, the facility of bail be extended to him. Reliance has also been placed on an order of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5053 of 2022, wherein in the similar circumstances the facility of the bail has been extended to the applicant.

¶18

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the dispute has been amicably settled between the informant and the applicant, in the considered opinion of this Court the case of bail is made out.

¶19

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Meenu Sain involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) If the informant of this case, namely, Mithilesh Kumari feels aggrieved by this order, she may approach this Court for cancellation of this order as the facility of bail is being extended to the applicant on account of the fact that it has been forcefully submitted before this Court that the matter has been settled between the parties and reliance in this regard has been placed on written settlement dated 3.3.2020.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 23.3.2022 Muk

¶29

Digitally signed by MOHD UMAR KHAN Date: 2022.03.23 18:12:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Meenu Sain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenu Sain 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanji Turaha Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Nitin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhruv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Avinash Bajpai Alias Akash Bajpai Vs State of U.P.

Naseema and Another Vs State of U.P.