Dismissed

H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 May 2023BAIL/19675/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel for Case Crime No. 215 of 2023 involving cheating, criminal conspiracy, and corruption charges, the court rejected the plea. The court relied on the precedent established in the judgment relating to a co-accused, Kameshwar Mishra, where bail was denied due to non-cooperation, finding the present application equally unmeritable.

What did the court decide?

The application for bail was rejected, and the applicant was not enlarged on bail.

H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99260

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19675 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Ranjan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Akhil Ranjan, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Manoj Kumar Patel seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 120B IPC, Sections 66, 66C of the Information Technology Act, Section 29 of Police Act and Sections 7/8/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that anticipatory bail application of co-accused, Kameshwar Mishra has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4207 of 2023 (Kameshwar Mishra Vs. State of U.P). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶10

"Heard Mr. Rajiv Lochan Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶11

Perused the record.

¶12

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicantKameshwar Mishra seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No. 215 of 2023, under Section 419, 420, 120B IPC, Sections 66, 66C of the Information Technology Act, Section 29 of Police Act and Sections 7/8/13 of the Prevention oif Corruption Act, Police StationKhalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶13

Record shows that an FIR dated 07.03.2021 was lodged by first informant-Anshuman Mishra and was registered as Case Crime No. 215 of 2023, under Section 419, 420, 120B IPC, Sections 66, 66C of the Information Technology Act, Section 29 of Police Act and Sections 7/8/13 of the Prevention oif Corruption Act, Police Station-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, 3 persons namely (1)

¶14

SI, Kameshwar Mishra and (2) Head Constable Manoj Kumar Patel have been nominated as named accused.

¶15

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant has not been co-operating in the investigation of aforementioned case crime number, coercive process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against applicant. He has then referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171 and on basis thereof, he submits that since applicant has not been co-operating in the investigation, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant.

¶16

As a result, present application is liable to be dismissed at this stage.

¶17

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant submits that FIR was lodged on 07.03.2021 but without wasting any time, applicant approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4420 of 2023 (Kameshwar Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) which was disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2023. Thereafter, applicant approached court below by means of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2192 of 2023 on 29.03.2023 which came to be dismissed by court below vide order dated 05.04.2023. Immediately thereafter, the present application for anticipatory bail was filed on 11.04.2023. He further submits that applicant is a police personnel and therefore, it cannot be said that applicant has been absconding from the proceedings of aforementioned case crime number.

¶18

Be that as it may, it is an undisputed fact that coercive process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against applicant on account of his non-cooperation in the investigation of concerned case crime number. In view of above, the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Sharma (Supra) is clearly attracted in the present case.

¶19

As a result, present application for anticipatory bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶20

It is accordingly rejected.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.4.2023"

¶22

Learned A.G.A. contends that case of present applicant and aforementioned co-accused is almost similar and identical, therefore, no separation or segregation can be made with regard to the role of the present applicant in the crime in question. He, therefore, submits that bail application of present applicant is also liable to be rejected.

¶23

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant referred to the order dated 25.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18236 of 2023 (Virendra Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:

¶24

"1. Heard Mr. Saroj Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶25

2. Perused the record.

¶26

3. This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Virendra seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.215 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 120B I.P.C., Sections 66, 66C of I.T. Act and Sections 8/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station - Khalilabad, District - Sant Kabir Nagar during the pendency of trial.

¶27

4. Record shows that an F.I.R. dated 07.03.2023 was lodged by first informant, Anshuman Mishra and was registered as Case Crime No.215 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 120B I.P.C., Sections 66, 66C of I.T. Act, Section 29 Police Act, 1861 and Sections 7, 8 & 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons, namely, Sub-Inspector, Kameshwar Mishra, Manoj Kumar Patel and applicantVirendra Yadav have been nominated as named accused.

¶28

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant-Virendra is not a public servant, therefore, the provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted against applicant. Since, the applicant is not a police personnel, therefore, the provisions of Section 29 of Police Act, are also not attracted against the applicant. Rest of the charging sections are otherwise triable by Magistrate and carry maximum sentence of seven years. Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that main role has been assigned to other two named co-accused i.e. Kameshwar Mishra and Manoj Kumar Patel. As such case of applicant is clearly distinguishable from aforesaid named co-accused. Applicant is simply a Passport Agent and no cheating could be conducted by the applicant with the Passport department. Applicant has falsely been implicated under Section 120-B I.P.C. Offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. is subject to trial evidence. Applicant is in jail since 07.03.2023. As such, applicant has undergone more than 1 month and 15 days of incarceration. Applicant is a man of clean antecedents, inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶29

6. Per contra, the learned A.G.A.has opposed the present application for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant at this stage.

¶30

7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for state, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that the main role assigned in the F.I.R. is to other two named accused i.e. Kameshwar Mishra and Manoj Kumar Patel, the case of present applicant is clearly cheating whichever for other named coaccused. The offence complained of against applicant is punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C. which is subject to trial evidence, there being clean antecedents of applicant as he has no criminal history to his credit against the applicant, the applicant is simply a Passport Agent, the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act being not applicable to the applicant as he is not a public servant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶31

8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶32

9. Let the applicant-Virendra involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 :-

¶33

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶34

(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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C..

¶35

(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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶36

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 sufficient 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.

¶37

(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶38

10. However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶39

Order Date :- 25.4.2023"

¶40

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that there is nothing to dislodge the observations made in paragraph 7 of the order dated 25.04.2023.

¶41

As a result, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

¶42

It is accordingly rejected .

¶43

Order Date :- 9.5.2023 Vinay

¶44

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

H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel 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

Surendra Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Irtaza and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pal Vs Shiv Raj Singh

Lullu Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Braj Bhushan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another