Allowed

Prashant Peshwani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024/7737/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that applicant entitled to bail in cheating case despite identity of main gang leaders. Rejected prosecution claim as chargeable items recovered could not be linked to FIR. Bail granted with conditions to cooperate in trial and not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Releaase applicant on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to specified conditions including attendance in court

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51006

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7737 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prashant Peshwani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey,Ashish Kumar Yadav,Martand Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 8 of 2024, under Sections 419/420/34 I.P.C. & 66 D of the I.T. Act Police Station Cyber Crime, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶9

Prosecution story is that the complainant received a call from 9727741346 through Whatsapp calling and was informed that whatever amount he would deposit through bet daily app link, he would get more money and, thereafter, the complainant deposited Rs.1,66,399/- in different accounts but later on, it was found that same was fake and cheat and fraud has been committed.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police. He submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and once the police raided two places in Bharat City Tower at Ghaziabad, the applicant including the other co-accused persons were arrested and two mobile sets including some amount are said to be recovered from his possession, though later on, on his pointing out, 8 laptops including 25 mobile sets are also said to be recovered from the place, which was pointed out by him. He next added that infact, the Investigating OfÏcer has failed to connect the aforesaid laptops and mobile sets with the mobile phone said to be used in the offence as mentioned in the first information report and only on the basis

¶11

of suspicion, the applicant has been tried to connect with the present matter.

¶12

Adding his arguments, he submits that infact, the main accused persons are Himanshu @ Sainki and Saurabh @ Hani and one of them has been arrested. Further submitted that except apart the aforesaid false recovery from the possession of the applicant, there is no other cogent piece of evidence against him so as to connect with the instant matter and he has also shown the other falsity in the prosecution story and submitted that the other co-accused persons, who were arrested at the same spot namely, Mahdhvendra Shukla, Anand Shukla and Ravi, have already been enlarged on bail as they were also not connected with the incident. Further submission is that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant, as mentioned in paragraph no. 22 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 22-05-2024 and the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and will co-operate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that present applicant including other twenty co-accused persons were arrested by the police, on a raid in Bharat City Tower at Ghaziabad and from the statements of the co-accused persons, namely,Himanshu @ Sainki and Saurabh @ Hani, it is evident that the applicant was involved in committing the offence, thus, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it is evident that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22-05-202; there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant and the main gang leaders are the co-accused persons namely, Himanshu @ Sainki and Saurabh @ Hani and one of them has been arrested.

¶15

This court has also noticed the fact that laptops and the mobile sets, which are said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, could not be connected with the instant matter and the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶17

Let the applicant- Prashant Peshwani, involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

(2) 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. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶20

(3) 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.; and

¶21

(4) 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

¶22

the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶25

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 AKS

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prashant Peshwani v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Peshwani 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

Sanjay Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Kamla Maghar vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Officer Pankaj Dubey,N.C.B.,Lko.

Kamala Devi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anurag Kumar Kushwaha and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Awasthi @ Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law Lko. and Another