Allowed

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2023/7093/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed bail to the applicant in a cheating case under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC. The court relied on the principle from a Supreme Court judgment to avoid detailed evidence examination for bail. The applicant must furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:40068

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7093 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Bhardwaj,Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 47/2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

As per the narration in the First Information Report dated 20.01.2023, the complainant has purchased a land on 16.07.2019 through Mithilesh @ Ram Naresh. After sometime, the complainant came to know that Mithilesh @ Ram Naresh cheated him by selling the land of one Maalik Igad Kirmani by placing Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam-the present applicant as an imposter in place of Maalik Igad Kirmani.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged with a delay of more than four years. There is no allegation of committing fraud or cheating upon the applicant. The allegation is against the co-accused Mithilesh @ Ram Naresh. It is further submitted that the applicant is an uneducated labour. He had not cheated the complainant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 26.01.2023. It is further submitted that the offences are triable by Magistrate and the investigation of the case has already been concluded.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but he does not dispute the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate.

¶12

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of records of the case as well as the facts that the offences are triable by Magistrate; investigation has already been concluded; first information report was lodged with delay of more than four years and considering the law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi Vs. State of Gujarat ( Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 10051 of 2022 wherein it has been held that detailed examination of the evidence and

¶13

elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoid while passing orders on bail applications as while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited, thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid dictum, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant namely Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.6.2023/Nitesh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Smt. Subhadra Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Hanuman Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 5 Others

Mauliram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Nandan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Maneesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another