Allowed

Uttam Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023CRLA/5045/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of the appellant against an order rejecting his plea. The Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail on personal bond with two sureties, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected, bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

Uttam Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5045 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Uttam Dubey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhakar Pandey,Priyanka Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Pradeep Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 1002437 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2022, under Sections 406, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 354 IPC and Section 3 (1) Da, 3 (1) Dha, 3 (2) (V.A.) of SC/ST Act, police station Devgaon, district Azamgarh.

¶7

According to prosecution case, the appellant has obtained Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 1,80,000/- and 50,000/- from the informant and his other relatives for providing government job in airport to his son and his relatives. He gave fake and forged appointment letters to them and told them that after full payment, they will get salary for their work. The appellant indulged in obscene activities with the daughter-in-law of the informant on the pretext of removing her illness by black magic.

¶8

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the informant had himself borrowed Rs.2,70,000/from the appellant and in order to avoid refund thereof, he has lodged false criminal case against the appellant by submitting application under Section 156 CrPC. It is also submitted that there is no documentary evidence regarding the alleged payment made by informant to appellant for getting job for his son and other relatives. It is next submitted that charge-sheet has been filed in the case and there is no likelihood of appellant preventing the witnesses from giving evidence to the Investigating Officer. It is

¶9

also submitted that the appellant did not make obscene gestures with informant's daughter-in-law. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of two cases which has duly been explained in the supplementary affidavit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 11.06.2022 and, in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant has duped of total sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- on the pretext of providing government job to his son and his relatives and gave forged and fake appointment letters to the candidates. The appellant has indulged in an obscene act with the informant's daughter-in-law.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, complicity of the accused, the oral and documentary evidence collected in the case diary, pleadings made by the appellant in his memo of appeal, the fact that the appellant is in jail since 11.06.2022, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 21.06.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant Uttam Dubey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶15

(ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶17

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶18

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶19

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 7.2.2023 Pratima

¶21

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

Uttam Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shakti Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Kumar Alias Pintu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vineet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avaneesh Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Atal Joshi Alias Awadh Bihari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tahir Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another