Allowed

Smt. Dharmaji Saroj v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024/8721/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in bank fraud case where loan was taken against consumers' fixed deposits and Rs.9.95 lacs was credited to the applicant's account and withdrawn. Charge sheet filed; offences triable by Magistrate. Court granted bail subject to conditions including return of Rs.9.95 lacs within four months.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties; condition to return Rs.9.95 lacs to bank within four months of release.

Smt. Dharmaji Saroj Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55735

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8721 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Dharmaji Saroj

¶5

Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the accused persons by hatching conspiracy has taken loan against fixed deposit of the consumers of bank. The said amount has been received and withdrawn by accused persons. During investigation, it is noticed that Rs.9.95 lacs has been credited in the account of the present applicant. Subsequently, the amount of Rs.9,96,280/has been withdrawn by way of withdrawal cheque No.996280.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that apart from offence under section 477 I.P.C., all the other offences are punishable upto seven years. Section 477 I.P.C. deals with fraudulent cancellation, destruction or defacing etc a will, an authority to adopt a son, or any valuable security, or commits mischief in respect of such document. The applicant being illiterate person is incapable of committing offence under section 477 I.P.C. and also any offence under section 66-C of the information Technology Act because of his illiteracy.

¶10

It is submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report. The applicant is not a previous convict. There is no previous criminal history also. Regarding the present offence, related to the bank, the applicant has been implicated in six other cases.

¶11

The applicant undertakes that in case of release from jail, she will return the alleged Rs.9.95 lacs credited in the bank and later on withdrawn from his account through cash withdrawal cheque. The applicant is in jail since 23.4.2024.

¶12

It is further submitted that 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.

¶13

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the charge sheet has been filed, offences are triable by Magistrate, undertaking given on behalf of the applicant, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

6. Let the applicant Smt. Dharmaji Saroj, involved in Case Crime No.118 of 2024 under sections 66-C I.T. Act, 34, 120-B, 409, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 I.P.C., P.S. Leelapur, district Pratapgarh (charge sheet No.180 of 2024 under sections 420, 120-B, 34, 477 I.P.C. and 66-C I.T. Act) be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall return to the bank amount of Rs.9.95 lacs as per undertaking given by her, within four months from the date of her release from jail and will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 kkb/

¶24

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

Smt. Dharmaji Saroj v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dharmaji Saroj v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 2 Others

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

Mohammad Shuaib Beg @ Shibu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mr. Chandra Prakash @ Rajan Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Apil Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Lko and Another

Rana Anand Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 2 Others

Krishna Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another