Allowed

Anurag Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2024/2685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Anurag Tiwari accused under Section 409 IPC for ATM money short allotment. Considering the prolonged trial delay and lack of immediate conclusion prospects, the court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to court-specified conditions.

Anurag Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29919

¶2

Court No. - 8 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2685 of 2024 Applicant :- Anurag Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 346 of 2021 under Section 409 I.P.C., Police Statin- Achalganj, District- Unnao.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the applicant was engaged by M/s CMS Infosys System Ltd. and his main work was to load the money in A.T.M. Booths. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the money was in short in the A.T.M. Booth, which was loaded by the applicant after taking the same from the bank. He further submits that incident is of one year ago from the date of lodging the F.I.R. in question, hence, it is highly improbable that in case appropriate money was not loaded in the A.T.M. Booth, then why it was not reported within time, and when the machine has shown that no money was available in the A.T.M. Booth, then it was to be reported by the bank. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed by Investigating Officer and the applicant is in jail since 14.04.2022, and first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7453 of 2022 with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial of the present case, expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, but till today the trial has not been concluded as only one witness has been examined. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future and co-accused, namely, Rajneesh Pandey has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.01.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 235 of 2022. It is, thus, submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the proceeding of the trial, thus, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that sufficient evidence has been found against the applicant as the money, which was reported in short, was refunded by the applicant, and it clearly shows the admission of the applicant. However, he does not dispute the fact that coaccused Rajneesh Pandey has already been enlarged on bail.

¶8

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the bail application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant enclosures; it is evident that the applicant is in jail since

¶9

14.04.2022 and his first bail application was rejected vide order dated 20.02.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 7453 of 2022 with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial of the present case, expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, but till today the trial has not been concluded as only one witness has been examined. Thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Anurag Tiwari who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶12

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶14

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶15

(v) 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., 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶16

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 15.4.2024 Arpan

¶19

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

Anurag Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Lillahi @ Lilahi and 18 Others Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Shrawasti and 8 Others

Smt. Indrawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Kanhaiya Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Sarvesh Kumar Agrahari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Anurag Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.