Allowed

Aryansh Pathariya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2023BAIL/43524/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of cheating under IPC Sections 406 and 420. The court held that the applicant had established a prima facie case for bail, considering the nature of the offence and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, while explicitly reserving judgment on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and absence.

Aryansh Pathariya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197505

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43524 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aryansh Pathariya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Diksha Verma, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2021, U/S 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith the co-accused person Abhishek Singh is stated to have duped the informant to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs on the pretext that he shall be granted profit in the contract in the electricity department.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has also stated that all the allegations are against co-accused person Abhishek Singh, as it was he, who was acquainted to the informant and at the time of him coming to the office of Abhishek Singh, the applicant was also found there. Learned counsel has stated that except the said allegation, there is no other allegation against him. The money, if any, has been transferred to the account of co-accused person Abhishek Singh only.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.6.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Aryansh Pathariya, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(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.

¶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 229A IPC.

¶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., 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 IPC.

¶18

(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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 12.10.2023\Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aryansh Pathariya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryansh Pathariya 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

Mushahid Ali and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaish Mohammad @ Kaish Hussain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mujjamil Vs State of U.P.

Hafiz @ Mohd. Hafiz and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girish Tiwari and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.