Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17339

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2165 of 2024

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar,Sanat Singh,Suhail Kashif

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including, upto date case diary, and charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.419/2023, under Sections 420, 506, 504, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The informant of this case appears to be aggrieved by the fact that he has not got possession of the land which was purchased by him from Govardhan Colonizers Private Ltd., of which the applicant is a Director.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that it is itself stated in the FIR that on 26.09.2016, two cheques were given to the informant with the assurance that the possession of the plot would be delivered and if not delivered the same may be encashed. The incident is of the year 2014 and the two cheques are shown to have been given in the year 2016, however, the FIR could only be filed in the year 2023.

¶12

It is also submitted that mutation in the name of informant has also been made in the revenue record and necessary proceedings may be initiated for procuring of possession if, as per the informant, he has not got the possession of the land purchased by him.

¶13

It is also submitted that 13 FIRs have been lodged against the applicant, however barring one, which is pertaining to Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC all other cases are identical in nature and in eleven of such cases the applicant has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Court vide orders dated 07.11.2023, 07.11.2023, 07.11.2023, 07.11.2023, 25.08.2023, 05.09.2023, 30.01.2024, 15.02.2024, 15.02.2024, 22.02.2024 and 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11181 of 2023, 11196 of 2023, 11180 of 2023, 11197 of 2023, 10615 of 2023, 10863 of 2023, 914 of 2024, 1647 of 2024, 1697 of 2024, 1993 of 2024 and 2076 of 2024, respectively and copies of these bail orders are placed on record collectively as Annexure No. SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit filed today.

¶14

It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 01.06.2023 and there is no apprehension that the accusedapplicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the incident is of the year 2014, two cheques are also shown to have been given by the applicant drawn in favour of the informant, however, allegations and counter allegations have been levelled with regard to these cheques, as the case of the applicant is that he has given the cheques as a assurance that if he will not get the possession the same may be encashed and case of the informant appears to be that it was assured that possession would be delivered and in the meantime, the cheques should not be deposited in the bank for the purpose of encashment. Allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other by the parties, may better be appreciated by the trial court, during the course of trial. The applicant is in jail in this case since 01.06.2023 and has also been granted regular bail with regard to three cases of identical nature. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶17

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The

¶18

bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶26

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ram Murat Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Govt. India

Imran Khan Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Puneet Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I./Acb Lko.

Gajraj Kunwar Jain Vs Govt. of India Thru. Assistant Director , Directorate of Enforcement Allahabad

Surendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another