Allowed

Smt. Mithlesh Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/400/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Lucknow allowed bail for the applicant in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The court noted her co-accused directors were granted bail and remanded her on a personal bond with sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, cooperate in trial sincerely, and not commit any crime.

Smt. Mithlesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3670

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 400 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Mithlesh Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶7

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

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Smt. Mithlesh Verma for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 679 of 2022, under Sections 420, 409 IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District - Barabanki, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. She was at the relevant point of time was the Director of the Company. However, she was not associated with the active management of the Company and her name has surfaced in the alleged crime without there being any evidence or material and only on account of her position in the Company, about 43 cases of identical nature have been lodged against her. However out of these 43 cases, in 29 cases, she has been granted bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Gunjan Verma, Sharad Kumar Verma, Sangam Verma, Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma, Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav, who all were Directors in the aforesaid Company have also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 3.11.2023, 16.12.2023, 01.11.2023, 18.5.2023, 3.11.2023 and 1.8.2023 passed in Criminal. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 13039 of 2023, 14871 of 2023, 12809 of 2023, 6505 of 20231, 13032 of 2023 and 9642 of 2023, respectively.

¶11

It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this

¶12

case since 24.11.2022. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail she may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that only on the basis of identical allegations, about 43 criminal cases have been lodged against the applicant. However out of these 43 cases in 29 cases, she has been granted bail. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Gunjan Verma, Sharad Kumar Verma, Sangam Verma, Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma, Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav, who all were Directors in the aforesaid Company, have also been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that facility of bail granted to the identically placed co-accused persons has been challenged in the higher court. The applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 24.11.2022. Charge sheet in this case has also been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the facility of bail may be extended to the applicant. Thus, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the accused/applicant- Smt. Mithlesh Verma involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Shravan

¶24

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

Smt. Mithlesh Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mithlesh Verma 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

Hashim @ Baggha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Dist. Lko

Ravi Pratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rasool Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Sudhir Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.