Allowed

Meenu Sain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2022BAIL/6620/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application in a cheating case where the applicant alleged false implication arising from a business dispute. The court noted a prior Writ Petition allowed quashing upon settlement but the I.O. failed to comply. Noting the applicant is not a flight risk and the A.G.A. could not dispute the criminal history, the court held the applicant entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6620 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Meenu Sain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shadab Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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.569 of 2019 at Police Station-Kasna/Beta-2, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120-B IPC. The applicant is in jail since 12.09.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gautam Buddh Nagar on 14.01.2022.

¶7

Shri Shadab Alam, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case.The criminal case arises out of a business dispute between the parties. The parties have arrived at a settlement. The parties had approached this Court by instituting a writ petition registered as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11519 of 2020, wherein the following order was passed by this Court on 03.11.2020:

¶8

"Sri Anil Kumar submits that he shall file his power on behalf of the informant in the Registry during the course of

¶9

the day. Office shall thereafter place the same on record.

¶10

Heard Sri Shadab Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned AGA.

¶11

The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 04.07.2019 in Case Crime No. 569 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kasna, DistrictGautam Buddh Nagar on the ground of settlement/compromise.

¶12

A prima facie perusal of the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences but the FIR is sought to be quashed on the ground of a recorded settlement between the respective parties.

¶13

Whether parties have entered into a compromise / settlement or not, is an issue which needs to be ascertained by examining the victim and other parties concerned before the I.O. concerned.

¶14

The learned A.G.A rightly submits that it would be in the fitness of things if the petitioners are relegated to place his compromise / settlement before the I.O concerned, who after examining the parties, shall submit a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶15

In the event the I.O concerned does not extend necessary cooperation, it shall be open for the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar who shall be obliged to pass appropriate orders.

¶16

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

It is clarified that the above liberty would be available only in the event the police has not submitted a report under Section 173(2) of the Code.

¶18

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶19

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."

¶20

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the investigating officer declined to receive the copy of the order passed by this Court. The Investigating Officer has acted in defiance of the order passed by this Court.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. contends that whether the copy of the order served or not is a matter of fact which has to be determined in the first instance.

¶22

In the facts of this case, the Court feels that the ends of justice will be served by directing the Police Commissioner, Gautam Buddh Nagar to ensure an cause of enquiry to be conducted into the aforesaid acts of the concerned Investigating Officer and take appropriate action as per law.

¶23

Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant the criminal cases arise out of a business disputes of a similar nature and many of them have already been amicably settled to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. The said criminal cases do not have any 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.

¶24

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, he does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application. 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Let the applicant-Meenu Sain 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.

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 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 :- 27.4.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶30

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.29 10:03:26 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prathvipal Vs State of U.P.

Anil Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Ali Vs State of U.P.

Subhan @ Shahbaz Vs State of U.P.