Allowed

Mukesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023BAIL/31064/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, lack of recovery, no prior criminal record, and the Magistrate trial status to order release on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Mukesh Singh on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and obeying specific undertaking conditions.

Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172996

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31064 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present first bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 140 of 2022 under Sections 420, 409 I.P.C. Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Despite opportunity given to learned AGA for the State to file counter affidavit, no such counter affidavit is filed till date.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to malafide intentions. Prosecution story as per the F.I.R. is that, present applicant along with one Vikas Singh, who are responsible for collection of cash from the Government and Private Banks and feed the money in the A.T.M., misappropriated a sum of Rs. 9,55,050/-. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that a sum of Rs. 61,37,877/- was to be deposited in the vault, however, as the cash counting machine was not functioning, the cash was deposited in the vault without counting and when the cash counting

¶10

machine was restored and the cash was counted on 16.02.2022 only Rs. 51,82,827/were found. It is submitted that applicant deposited the entire amount in the vault and the first informant in collusion with other employees implicated the present applicant in the present incident. However, the shortage of cash was found just after two days of the incident. It is further submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged after an inordinate delay of about 45 days without any explanation. It is contended that the applicant is a trainee in AGS Secure Value India Limited company and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is next contended applicant had no knowledge about the alleged F.I.R. and after he got the knowledge, applicant himself surrendered on 06.04.2023 before the Court below and applied for bail. It is further contended that applicant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2023 without any criminal history and the case is triable by Magistrate and if he is granted the liberty of bail he will not misuse the same and he is ready to furnish his sufficient sureties, bonds and personal bonds.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that applicant misappropriated a sum of Rs. 9,55,050/- and the applicant went missing from 12.02.2022, hence, the applicant does not deserve the privilege of bail.

¶12

I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record. It transpires from the F.I.R. that amount was collected on 14.02.2022 and was deposited in the vault, however, as the cash counting machine was not functioning, the cash was counted on 16.02.2022. Considering the fact that F.I.R.

¶13

was lodged after a delay of about 45 days without any explanation, there is no recovery from the present applicant, applicant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2023 without any previous criminal history, case is triable by Magistrate, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, accused-applicant is liable to be released on bail.

¶14

Let applicant Mukesh Singh be released on bail in the above case crime number and on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A 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,

¶18

then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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 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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking from the sureties that the properties (movable/immovable) which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them till the conclusion of trial.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he will not change his address without prior intimation to the trial court concerned.

¶22

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 28.8.2023 Karan

¶24

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

Mukesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Singh 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

Iiu@ Afzal Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kumari Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Joheb Pathan Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.