Allowed

Bhagirath Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023BAIL/1200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 420, 406, 504, and 506 IPC, the court directed release on bail. The court noted delays in FIR and the non-naming of the company, granting bail without expressing an opinion on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including appearance, non-interference, and no criminal activity.

Bhagirath Verma Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1200 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Bhagirath Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Mishra,Anand Mohan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA, for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.460 of 2021 under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Sungarhi, District Pilibhit during pendency of the trial.

¶7

According to the FIR, applicant being proprietor of the Firm, namely, M.H.A.Property India Limited duped the informant and on his instigation mother of informant invested Rs. One Lac in his company and after receiving the money a bond was issued by applicant but after maturity payment was not made.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegation made against the applicant is totally false and baseless and applicant never committed any fraud. He further submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged after three years from the date of alleged maturity of the policy bond. He further submitted that in fact applicant is not the working Director of the Company and there are several other Directors of the Company and being Ex-Pradhan of the village, applicant has been implicated in the present matter.

¶9

He further submitted that neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet Company has been made accused and admittedly fraud was committed on behalf of the Company. He further submitted

¶10

that applicant in the present mater is in jail since 28.4.2022, although he has been implicated in as many as 14 other cases but on the basis of similar allegations, he has been implicated in all the cases and he has explained criminal history of applicant in paragraph-11 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application. He further submitted that in number of cases applicant has been released on bail and his bail orders have been appended as annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after three years and Company has not been made accused either in the FIR or in the charge sheet and in several cases applicant has been released on bail.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Although there is allegation against the applicant that he duped the informant and on his instigation mother of the informant invested money in his Company and after receiving money he also issued policy bond and when in the year 2018 policy matured then no payment was made but admittedly, FIR of the present case was lodged after three years and Company has not been made party and applicant is in jail in the present matter since April, 2022.

¶14

Although applicant was also implicated in 14 other cases with similar allegation but it appears that in number of cases he has already been released on bail and his bail orders have been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application.

¶15

Therefore, from the discussions made above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, in my view,

¶16

applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

In the light of discussions made above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Bhagirath Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(ii) 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 SKM

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagirath Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagirath Verma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Subham Dheer Vs State of U.P.

Smt Sheela Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jasim Vs State of U.P.

Jauhara @ Mahak Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P.