Allowed

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 May 2024/4674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a cheating case. The court observed no risk of flight or witness tampering and imposed strict conditions regarding court appearances and witness integrity.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two reliable sureties under certain conditions regarding court attendance and witness conduct.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40786

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4674 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.461 of 2023 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Wazeerganj District Gonda during trial.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in so far as the present applicant is concerned, he was merely an employee of the Firm of the Knowing Education Centre.

¶12

It is further alleged in the FIR that in order to secure an admission for the son of the complainant in one of the medical colleges, certain amount was given to the co-accused. It is further alleged that the applicant and the other co-accused could not secure the admission for the son of the complainant and despite they being taken to Ludhiana and made to stay in a hotel for about 3 months yet the admission could not be secured. It is further urged that upon making demand for refund of the money, the applicant and co-accused refused which led to lodging of the FIR.

¶13

It is further submitted that it is at the instance of the Proprietor the amount was deposited into the account of the applicant however, the statement of account which has been brought on

¶14

record along with supplementary affidavit would indicate that whenever there was a substantial amount deposited into the account of the applicant on the next day soon thereafter, the amount has been withdrawn in the name of the co-accused Kim Yadav. It is further urged that the applicant just being an employee has been named, in so far as the money is concerned, though it was routed from the account of the applicant and the actual beneficiaries were the other co-accused.

¶15

It is further submitted that the co-accused Siddharth Tiwari has been granted bail vide order dated 27.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.3610 of 2024.

¶16

It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since 26.02.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶18

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, including that there is no criminal history, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Dileep Kumar involved in the abovementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶22

(ii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iii) 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.

¶24

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 Harshita

¶28

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

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar 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

National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Lko.through Its Administrative Vs Smt. Kusum Pandey and 4 Ors.

Ved Prakash @ Kunja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rehan @ Maanu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Jayraji vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), , Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Pankaj Mishra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.