Allowed

Satendri Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024/2179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application by Satendri Devi for bail in a cheating case was filed after the charge sheet was filed. The Court noted that the dispute with the complainant was resolved and the alleged amount was refunded. The Court found no need to hold her in custody as she had no criminal antecedents and released her on bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering, non-misuse, and presence in court.

Satendri Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19894

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2179 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satendri Devi

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Singh,Rajendra Pratap Singh,Vinay Pratap Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 95 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge her on bail.

¶10

In pursuance of the earlier order dated 26.02.2024, informant, Vineet Kumar s/o Kanhaiya Lal r/o Village Kelavan, Salempur, Bulandshahar, Adhaar No. 746549678509 is present before this Court along with SubInspector, Rajendra Prasad, P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged due to some misunderstanding and now the issue in between the parties has already been resolved. It is also submitted that as the charge sheet has already been filed, there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is lastly submitted that the trial is not going on and the applicant, who is a lady and has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 01.02.2022. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant

¶13

of bail to the applicant and submits that charge sheet was filed by the Investigating OfÏcer after collecting the evidences.

¶14

However, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the complainant himself categorically state that the alleged amount of Rs.5 lacs, as mentioned in the F.I.R., has already been refunded to the complainant and he has no objection, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail.

¶15

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of F.I.R., bail application,as well as other relevant documents, including the statement of the complainant made before this Court, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Application stands allowed.

¶17

Let applicant -Satendri Devi be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 95 of 2021, on her furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶19

(ii) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial

¶22

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 229A IPC.

¶23

(v) 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. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶24

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.

¶25

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶26

Order Date :- 5.3.2024 VKS

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satendri Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satendri Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Parties & counsel

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajeshwari Devi vs Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer, Distt. Sitapur

Pawan Kumar Gupta vs Shri Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Addl. General Manager / Unit Head (R.B) Iti Ltd., Raebarel and Another

Dr. Mohammad Shadab Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Lko. and 5 Others

Farhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ravi Pratap @ Ravi Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Shiv Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.