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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of the applicant Sandeep Maitee on bail in Case Crime No. 556 of 2020 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not tampering with prosecution evidence; (ii) not pressurizing prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearance on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Sandeep Maitee, who claims to be innocent, neither a director nor position holder of Vishwas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (having himself invested and been duped), and whose co-accused has already been granted bail, should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 556 of 2020 under Sections 34, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC.

Court's answer

Having considered the facts and circumstances, and without making any observation affecting the merits of the case, the Court held that the facts on record (including the applicant's claimed lack of role in the company, his own alleged duplication, prior bail to co-accused Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav, and the A.G.A.'s inability to dispute these aspects) were sufficient to make out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate/court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence, shall not pressurize prosecution witnesses, and shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL — grant of bail — applicant sought enlargement in Case Crime No. 556 of 2020, P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, under Sections 34, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, arising from an F.I.R. dated 12.12.2020 against eight named persons concerning investments in Vishwas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. with no returns paid on maturity. Applicant asserted innocence, that he was neither a director nor any other position holder of the company, and that he had himself invested and been duped; involvement in 31 other cases disclosed, bail already granted in 11. Co-accused Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav had been granted bail by the same Court on 22.12.2023 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.15318 of 2023. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but could not dispute these aspects. Held, the facts were sufficient to make out a case for enlargement; bail application allowed — applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with prosecution evidence, not pressurizing prosecution witnesses, and appearing on every date fixed by the trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; order dated 27.11.2024)

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78836

Court No. - 29

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8159 of 2024

Applicant :- Sandeep Maitee Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 556 of 2020, under Section 34, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 12.12.2020 against eight named persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant had made some investments in Vishwas Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. but upon maturity, no returns were paid.

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.The applicant's involvement in 31 other cases has been disclosed in para 16 of the affidavit, in 11 of which he has already been granted bail.

It has been stated in the affidavit that the applicant is neither a director nor any other position holder in the aforesaid company and in fact he had also made some investments in the company and he had been duped by the company.

Co-accused namely, Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav has been granted by means of an order dated 22.12.2023 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.15318 of 2023.

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid case.

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

Let the applicant- Sandeep Maitee be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

Order Date :- 27.11.2024 -Amit K-

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