Allowed

Manish Ojha v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024/15405/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case involving an alleged bank loan fraud. The matter was disposed of without expressing an opinion on the merits, noting that offences are triable by a magistrate and co-accused were already released.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions including non-tampering and court attendance.

Manish Ojha Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66667

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15405 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Ojha

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Amol Kumar Srivastava,Shivanshu Mishra

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Singh,Ashutosh Mishra,Surya Prakash

¶8

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶10

There is an illness slip on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant Shri Surya Prakash. Names of two counsel are shown in the cause list on the side of the complainant, however, no one is present.

¶11

This Court vide order dated 12.09.2024 has passed the stop order and hence, the matter cannot be adjourned on account of illness slip of learned counsel for the complainant.

¶12

In the FIR it is alleged that on 22.03.2023 at about 4 P.M. when the complainant was present at his house, the manager of Punjab National Bank along with 4 other persons came to the house of the complainant and inquired about the mother of the complainant, namely, Kanti Devi, and when asked by the complainant that why they are searching for the mother of the complainant, then, they used filthy language and stated that the mother of the complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/from Punjab National Bank against which the entire asset of the complainant will be auctioned, however, the mother of the complainant has neither taken loan from Punjab National Bank

¶13

nor has applied for the same; the complainant demanded the documents of loan taken by the mother of the complainant, but, no documents, whatsoever, were shown to the complainant, the complainant himself went to the Punjab National Bank to inquire about the loan on 24.02.2023, but, no information with regard to the loan was tendered to the complainant by the Punjab National Bank, upon the basis of which, the complainant suspects the manager of Punjab National Bank and his associates are involved in the fraud and the mother of the complainant has neither put her thumb impression nor signed any documents pertaining to the loan

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that simply because the wife of the applicant was guarantor in the alleged loan, he has been falsely implicated. He is not the employee of the bank. He has not committed any forgery. The applicant is not the beneficiary. Kanti Devi is the beneficiary. There is no material with the prosecution against the applicant. Offences are triable by magistrate. The applicant is not named in the FIR. Name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation. He is languishing in jail since 31.10.2022.

¶15

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application submitting that the applicant is the actual beneficiary. He with the collusion of the Branch manager has opened an account in the name of his wife Kanti Devi and he has also deposited some of the installments.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged account was opened in the year 2018 by Kanti Devi. He also submits that co-accused Nitesh Shukla who was the branch manager of the bank has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 8020 of 2024. Another co-accused Indu Prakash Mishra has

¶17

also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 04.07.2024. He seeks parity with the order of the co-accused persons. The applicant has explained his criminal history in para 17 of the bail application.

¶18

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

On due consideration to the status report of the trail court which shows that till date trial has not commenced as well as considering the fact that offences are triable by magistrate; two co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court; the applicant has explained his criminal history, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.10.2022 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 134/2023, under Sections 406/419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Balrampur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) The applicant 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.

¶25

(iv) 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.

¶26

(v) 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.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 R.C.

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Ojha v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Ojha v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Sahay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Uma Shanker Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Akash Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Govt. Lko and Another

Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Niyaz Ahmad @ Sadab vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Balwinder Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.