Allowed

Veerendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC14 May 2024/4104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench allowed the applicant Veerendra Kumar's petition for bail in a case involving cheating and forgery charges, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and ensuring presence at key trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to specific conditions.

Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36980 Through Video Conferencing

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4104 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Veerendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Lal,Jitendra Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Jitendra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.262 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow East (Commissionerate), during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution case, the applicant alongwith co-accused person Arvind Kumar, who happens to be the Supervisor at the said petrol pump, is stated to have usurped an amount between Rs.10-12 lakhs from the cash counter of the petrol pump named Nayan Filling Station Ganeshpur, Matiyari Chinhat, Lucknow belonging to the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that he is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The co-accused person Arvind Kumar was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 5.7.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.10506 of 2021. The applicant has not committed any forgery whatsoever.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the over writing committed on the bills is stated to have been attributed to co-accused person Arvind Kumar. It could not be ascertained by the informant as to what amount of forgery has been committed with him, whether it is Rs.10 lakhs or Rs.12 lakhs. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶12

against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.2.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant is the main accused person as it was he who had over written the said bills and had interpolated the amounts mentioned in them. Although, he could not dispute that applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Veerendra Kumar , 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Vikas/-

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

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

Veerendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Nityanand Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Lko

Kamlawti Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Veerendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Shaheem @ Kasim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Ram Surat @ Ram Surat Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.