Allowed

Mamta Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2023/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail cancellation application, the court held that the opposite party violated bail terms by failing to repay the admitted sum to the victim within the stipulated time, ordering bail cancellation and immediate remand to jail.

What did the court decide?

Bail order dated 06-12-2022 cancelled; sureties forfeited; personal bonds cancelled; accused remanded to jail.

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35714

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 35 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mamta Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Om Pandey,Rajat Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Case called out.

¶7

None is present for the opposite party no. 2 though as per the report of the ofÏce, notice has personally been served upon the opposite party no. 2.

¶8

In view of aforesaid circumstances, the court is proceeding with the matter.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Instant application for cancellation of bail has been filed under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment and order dated 06-12-2022 passed by this court in Crl.Misc. Bail Application No. 14131 of 2022 on the ground that the condition mentioned at point no. 1 of the bail application has been violated by the applicant as he admitted that he will repay back the amount of Rs. 6,52,000/- to Mamta Devi within a period of one month.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that infact against non payment of aforesaid amount, the present applicant has instituted the instant application for cancellation of bail wherein notices were issued and the same has been served. He added that neither the opposite party no. 2 nor his counsel appeared today and thus, the opposite party no. 2 is avoiding the court's proceedings deliberately. He next added that the opposite party no. 2 is playing with the proceeding of the court and even after a specific admission that he will repay the amount of Rs.

¶12

6,52,000/- to Mamta Devi, wife of Suresh, the same has still not been paid. This court considering the aforesaid payment of amount, enlarged the opposite party no. 2 on bail. Infact the opposite party no. 2 has committed cheat and fraud with several other persons including the present applicant and in several bail applications, he has admitted that he will repay back the amount to those persons, from whom, he has taken such money. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has not come with clean hands before this court and has played fraud upon the court.Thus, the submission is that since the opposite party no. 2 is misusing the liberty of bail and has violated the terms and conditions fixed by this court and therefore, the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 namely, Rajiv Mishra, vide order dated 0612-2022 may be cancelled.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has submitted that this court has granted bail to the opposite party no. 2 with the condition that he will repay the amount of Rs. 6,52,000/- to the present applicant namely, Mamta Devi as per the averments, which have been mentioned in the afÏdavit filed in support of the application for cancellation of bail,but, the same has not been paid as yet. It shows that the opposite party no. 2 has violated the terms and conditions mentioned in the bail application. He next added that prima-facie, there seems to be the violation of terms and conditions of the bail order. Thus, the submission is that the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 is liable to be cancelled.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, prima-facie, it reveals that on 06-12-2022, this court after well considering the statement of the opposite party no. 2 that he will repay back the amount of Rs. 6,52,000/- to the applicant namely Mamta Devi, had passed the order and enlarged the opposite party no. 2 on bail. The terms and conditions with respect to admission of opposite party no. 2 for repaying back the amount is also mentioned in the bail order dated 06-122022 at point no. 1. The fact with respect to non

¶15

payment of the amount has also been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the afÏdavit filed in support of application for cancellation of bail.

¶16

This court has also noticed the fact that the matter pertains to the financial fraud and once the opposite party no. 2, bonafidely submitted before this court that he is ready to repay back the amount to the victim, he was enlarged on bail, but, the same has still not been paid even after passing of the time prescribed in the order itself, which shows that the opposite party no. 2 has tried to mislead this court under the disguise of his being bonafide mistake to be removed by way of repayment to the applicant.

¶17

In view of aforesaid circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 has tried to play with the proceedings of this court and further he has violated the terms and conditions as mentioned in the bail application, particularly, on the admission of the opposite party no. 2 itself, the bail was granted to him vide order dated 06-12--2022.

¶18

In view of aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 06-12-2022 passed in Crl.Misc. Bail Application No. 14131 of 2022 is hereby cancelled.

¶19

The trial court concerned is directed to forfeit the sureties and cancel the personal bonds submitted by the opposite party no. 2.

¶20

The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to send the opposite party no. 2, Rajiv Mishra to jail forthwith.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.5.2023 AKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mamta Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Ram Karan Yadav and Another. Vs State of U.P.

Kashi Ram Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Govt. Lko. and Another

Chhotkku @ Jai Prakash Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Director Prosecution and Another

Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another