Allowed

Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024BAIL/1869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in an EOW cheating and criminal breach of trust case involving investment fraud and cheque dishonour; applicant bailed out in nine similar FIRs, lady accused in custody since July 2023. Court granted bail without expressing opinion on merits, subject to standard conditions including undertaking against adjournments, presence at trial stages, and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to conditions on attendance, no tampering, and consequences for misuse.

Neelam Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28514

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1869 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neelam Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla,Kishan Tiwari,Rohit Shukla,Shrayansh Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Salma Bano,Shresth Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today by the learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 442 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand (E.O.W.), District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant alleging therein that the complainant, his wife and two sons had invested money in Enfinity World Company. The same as invested was to be returned with lucrative returns, but the same was not done. It is further stated that the complainant had sought refund of their money but it was not returned. Certain real estate transaction is also said to have been done for which a cheque of Rs. 11,74,123/- is said to have given by Shri Abhay Kumar Kushwaha, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. It is further stated that the company viz., Hello Ride Limited was incorporated by the said Shri Abhay Kumar Kushwaha and the applicant has been introduced in the company as a director. However, it is stated that it was not in the knowledge of the applicant.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is urged that it is purely a commercial transaction which has gone sour and instead of resolving the issue, the FIR has been lodged against the applicant only to create pressure. It is also pointed out that similar kinds of FIRs have been lodged in

¶11

the same police station, the details of which have been mentioned in para no. 6 of the bail application. However, the applicant has been bailed out in 9 of such cases and apart from these cases, there is no other criminal history against the applicant. Moreover, the applicant is a lady and has been in jail since 29.7.2023. Thus in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

It is also urged that the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the evidence. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

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, 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 she 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.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Neelam Verma 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:-

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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

¶19

Code.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 8.4.2024

¶25

Shravan

¶26

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

Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Dukhram and Another Vs Arjun Prasad and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar and Others Vs Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Smt. Asha Singh Vs Civil Judge (J.D) Room Number 23, Distt. Pratapgarh and 5 Others

Limit Engineers through its Sole Proprietor, Rakesh Kumar Gupta @ Rakesh Kumar Manager Prasad Gupta vs Goel Builders (Construction Unit) through its propreitor Mr. Amit Agarwal

Smt. Shobha Srivastava and 2 Others vs District and Session Judge Faizabad and 5 Others

The Public Works Department Thru. Chief Engineer vs Pnc Infratech Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory