Allowed

Prabhakar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2024BAIL/12378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim bail in a criminal matter involving cheating and criminal breach of trust, conditioned on the release of the applicant to facilitate the payment of a disputed debt of Rs. 35.00 Lacs and the return of original property documents by the informant.

What did the court decide?

Released on interim bail for one and half months pending payment of Rs. 35.00 Lacs and production of property documents.

Prabhakar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12378 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Prabhakar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sheo Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aditya Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant/complainant, who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant, the same is taken on record.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is languishing in jail since 07.10.2024, in Case Crime No.0399/2024, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station - Krishna Nagar, District - Lucknow.

¶8

The office has noted that, "As per CIS report File No.43662 (Bail) of the Applicant filed earlier on 19/11/2024. May the Hon'ble Court kindly see to it."

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has informed the Court that earlier the bail application of the present applicant was filed, but on account of some defect in the affidavit, he filed this bail application correcting those defects. He has submitted that no other bail application of the present applicant is pending.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that though there is some civil dispute, for that a civil suit is pending consideration between the parties, however, the informant is not a party in that suit, but the dispute in question is relating to the same property, the recital to this effect has been given in paragraphs 35 to 39 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In paragraph 40 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, applicant has stated that he is still ready to pay the admitted amount of Rs.35.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs only) to the informant. Attention of the Court has been drawn

¶11

towards Annexure No.4 of the bail application, which is the statement of account of account No.31029891528 of the State Bank of India relating to the applicant, wherein it has been categorically indicated that a sum of Rs.31.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty One Lacs only) has been transferred from the account of the wife of the informant to the account of the present applicant. However, attention of the Court has been drawn towards Annexure No.15, which is an agreement entered into between the parties on 03.08.024, wherein the fact has been admitted that present applicant has given two Cheques of Rs.4.00 Lacs (Rupees Four Lacs only) and Rs.31.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty One Lacs only) on the condition that the aforesaid Cheques may not be misutilized and if the entire amount is paid to the informant, those cheques would be returned. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that before expiry of the period, as indicated in the agreement, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and the applicant has been sent to jail.

¶12

Today, learned counsel for the applicant has shown a Cheque of Rs.35.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs only) of Union Bank of India to convince the Court that the applicant would make payment of Rs.35.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs only) to the informant. Rs.31.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty One Lacs only) is actual liability, which has been admitted by the informant and Rs.4.00 Lacs (Rupees Four Lacs only) would be the amount of interest and other expenses.

¶13

On that, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the actual liability against the present applicant is more than Rs.35.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Only), more precisely, it is about Rs.50.00 Lacs (Rupees Fifty Lacs only), for which, he is having complete details, which may be filed along with the counter affidavit.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as soon as the present applicant is released from jail, he shall arrange the aforesaid amount of Rs.35.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs only) by selling out his own property/house and he shall make payment of Rs.35.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs only) to the informant Sohan Sharma through demand draft or it shall be transferred online in the account of informant Sohan Sharma, within a period of one month from the date of his release. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in case the informant demonstrates some more amount against the present applicant by filing relevant evidence to that effect, the present applicant may also do the needful for payment of the said amount, after verifying the aforesaid documents. Shri Sheo Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, has also stated that present applicant gives his undertaking that he shall

¶15

discharge his entire liability by making payment of the entire amount to the informant.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail or interim bail by submitted that they may be granted time to counter affidavit. However, they are agreeable that in case the applicant is willing to pay/return the entire amount to the informant, they have no objection.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid submissions and undertaking of the applicant, I find it appropriate that present applicant may be granted interim bail for a period of one and half months, so that, the applicant could make payment of Rs.35.00 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs only) to the informant, within a period of one and half months from the date of his release from jail.

¶18

Accordingly, let the applicant (Prabhakar Mishra) be released on interim bail for a period of one and half months from the date of his release from jail, in the aforesaid case crime number, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶19

(i) Immediately after release from the jail, the applicant shall make payment of the amount, as aforesaid as undertaken herein above, within the stipulated time.

¶20

(ii) The present applicant as well as informant-Sohan Sharma shall appear in person before this court on 22nd January, 2025.

¶21

(iii) The present bail application may be disposed of finally on the next date, considering the conduct of the present applicant.

¶22

(iv) 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.

¶23

(v) 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.

¶24

(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

¶25

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.

¶26

(vii) 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.

¶27

List this case on 22nd January, 2025.

¶28

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant may file their counter affidavit.

¶29

Since the applicant is to dispose of his own house/property and the original registry/papers thereof are in the possession of the informant, as indicated in the compromise deed (Annexure No.15), therefore, the informant shall hand over the original registry/papers of the house/property in question of the applicant, so that, he could do the needful in terms of the undertaking given and considered herein above.

¶30

When the case is next listed, name of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate shall be printed in the cause list as counsel for the informant/complainant.

¶31

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶32

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 ML/-

¶33

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

Prabhakar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankul Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Lavsun Emasoum Cheenagoram Maxwell vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Nikhil Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suresh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Suresh Kumar Verma vs State of. U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suresh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko.