Allowed

Sahdev v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023BAIL/27489/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. where the applicant, implicated in a cheating case involving paddy transactions, argued about delayed FIR. Noting over three months of confinement and lack of evidence to suggest tampering or intimidation, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for conditions regarding appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157052

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27489 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sahdev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Yadav,Santosh Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Tripathi B.G. Bhai

¶6

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 192 of 2022, under Sections-420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 I. P. C., Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report has been lodged belatedly after more than three and half months from the date of alleged incident. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay. The applicant was the Kendra Prabhari of the P. C. U., Mathura of Gowardhan Unit. The alleged paddy was sent by the applicant through different trucks at M/s Hari Rice Centre, P. S.-Magorra, district-Mathura. The said paddy amounting to 2110 quintals were duly received on different dates and online receipts were duly issued. It is contended that since M/s Hari Rice Centre did not supply the rice within the prescribed period, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Further, arbitration proceedings at the instance of the informant have already been initiated and the same are pending before the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Lucknow. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 17 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 11.4.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the applicant has remained confined for more than three and half months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant-Sahdev, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 HR

¶18

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahdev v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdev 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

Anil @ Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Khushhal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Fatma Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munabbar Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.