Allowed

Urmila v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024/12312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim bail to applicant Urmila in a case involving cheating and forgery charges. The court held her a fit subject for bail despite severe allegations, noting her role as a marginal witness and lack of prior criminal history, subject to conditions including cooperation in trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Urmila on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Urmila Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78344

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12312 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Urmila Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Sri Alok Srivastava, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 85 of 2024, under sections 419,420,467,468,471,120-B of the I.P.C.,Police Station-Dahi, District-Unnao. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive.He added that the applicant is the marginal witness and she has never received any sale consideration or any kind of consideration in lieu of marginal witness. He next added that the applicant is in no way beneficiary and the purchaser and the vendor are the beneficiaries of the sale deed in question and being the village man, she went for witnessing the sale deed and it is not a case of impersonation. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12-08-2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as AGA appearing for the State have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the

¶10

applicant is not entitled for any relief as there are serious allegations against him.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12-08-2024; there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant as has been explained in paragraph 15 of the bail application; the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the vendor,vendee and the other coaccused persons coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Urmila, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person,

¶17

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.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Urmila v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Tausif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Lalit Kumar @ Kunne Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Rinkoo Sharma @ Bhupendra Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. O F U.P. Lko.

Anurag Singh @ Shivraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.