Allowed

Talewar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023BAIL/7940/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application involves an applicant charged with cheating and forgery offences related to online fraud. The court addressed jail overcrowding concerns and the applicant's claim of false implication. The High Court granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding evidence tampering, court appearances, and return to the trial court during critical stages.

What did the court decide?

Release the applicant on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions preventing evidence tampering and ensuring court attendance during the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7940 of 2023

¶2

Applicant :- Talewar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Talewar Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 962 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 66-D I.T. Act, Police Station Civil Lines, DistrictMoradabad, during pendency of trial.

¶6

There is allegation against the applicant and co-accused in the FIR of committing online fraud on the basis of false promise of sanction of loan and getting deposit of processing fee, etc., for the sanction of laon. The recovery of several mobile phones, credit cards, stamp papers, etc., have been shown from the place where applicant and coaccused were found to be indulging in the alleged offences.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only allegation against the applicant is that he had provided datas to the co-accused persons on payment of Rs.15 to 30 per data. His name has been taken by co-accused, Ravi Chaudhary, who is owner of the premises where the alleged offences were being committed. Co-accused, namely, Aniket Gautam, Ravi Kumar, Swati Gautam and Aman Khanna have been granted bail by the court below. The case of the applicant is on better footing than the co-accused. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He is languishing in jail since 21.12.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over

¶10

and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) 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.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.3.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Talewar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talewar 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

Faheem Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Rai Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Lal Chand Bind @ Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Mandal Vs State of U.P.

Anmol Katiyar Vs State of U.P.