Allowed

Manak Mimoh Bharti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2022BAIL/5937/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application in a cheating and forgery case. The court found merit in the applicant's submissions that the underlying dispute was commercial in nature and the applicant faced no risk of tampering with evidence or being a flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Relief: Applicant enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to standard conditions against tampering and influencing witnesses.

Manak Mimoh Bharti Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5937 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manak Mimoh Bharti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Anil Kumar Rai,Awaish Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.39 of 2021 at Police Station-Ratanpuri, DistrictMuzaffarnagar under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406, 506, 120-B IPC. The applicant is in jail since 17.10.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Muzaffarnagar on 20.01.2022. Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Ambreen Masroor, learned counsel for the applicant contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is a director in the company registered under the name and style of 'M/s Alex Smart Green House Private Limited' (hereinafter referred to as the 'company'). The company has expertise in construction of Poly houses for crop culture. The company and the informant entered into two separate contracts for executing two projects for

¶7

construction of poly houses. One project was successfully completed. There was some financial disputes between the informant and the company on account of which the second project could not be completed in time. The dispute is a commercial in nature. There was no intent to cheat at a very inception. The company has a past and impeccable success of record in the business. The company has not been impleaded as a party. The applicant being a director cannot be held personally liable for the acts of the company. Reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sushil Sethi and another Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others , reported at (2020) 3 SCC 240. Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the aforesaid cases also relate to commercial dispute. The said criminal cases do not depict commission of any heinous crime by the applicant and have no bearing on the instant case. The applicant is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶8

Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily

¶9

dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, they do not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant-Manak Mimoh Bharti be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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

¶16

evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 1.6.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶18

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.06.02 16:26:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manak Mimoh Bharti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manak Mimoh Bharti 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Ram Vs State of U.P.

Anant Pal@ Anant Ram@ Antu Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Chandralok Vs State of U.P.

Lakshya Tawar Vs State of U.P.

Washim Khan @ Shahid Khan Vs State of U.P.