Allowed

Smt. Mithlesh Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2024BAIL/2433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a cheating/forgery case arising from property investment fraud. Applicant, old-aged wife of the deceased firm proprietor, was not directly involved; she had bail in 41 of 43 cases. Court granted bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. with standard conditions including undertaking to cooperate in trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32114

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2433 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Mithlesh Verma

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar,Abhishek Sonker Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Mani Tripathi,Manoj Kumar Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Pandey, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the informant as well as perused the material available on record.

¶8

Learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the informant have filed counter affidavits, the same are taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit and has requested that the present bail application may be disposed of today itself for the reason that the present applicant is an old aged lady who is in jail since 23.11.2022 in Case Crime No. 421 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 409, 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly submitted that the husband and son of the applicant were indulged in doing the business of property dealing and investment etc. He has further submitted that husband of the applicant was proprietor of the Firm, namely, 'Sankalp Trading Services'. Her husband has died during the judicial custody. Further, the present applicant was not directly involved in the affairs of the Company nor was in interaction with the persons who have invested the huge money in the Firm to purchase the property for the purpose of investment. Sri Ajeet Kumar has further submitted that since the husband of the present applicant was in jail and he died during the judicial custody and her son, namely, Atul Kumar Verma is also in jail for quite some time, therefore, the genuine bonafide money of the investors etc. could not be returned. Sri Kumar has stated that if the applicant is released on bail she will try her level best to return the genuine bonafide money of the investors etc.

¶11

So far as the prior criminal history of the present applicant is concerned, there are total 43 criminal cases have been

¶12

registered against the present applicant, out of them she has been granted bail in 41 cases. The present case and one case relating to Gangster Act, the applicant has not been granted bail. Sri Ajeet Kumar has stated that on same allegations, almost all the aforesaid criminal cases have been filed against the present applicant and the reason for lodging the aforesaid cases against the present applicant is that her late husband and her son were involved in the affairs of the Firm. If the present applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and she shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. The applicant is an old aged lay, therefore, she may be enlarged on bail providing the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the informant have opposed bail application vehemently and have submitted that almost 200 Crores rupees of various persons have been duped by the husband, son and the present applicant. Sri Murtaza has further submitted that even if she was not actively involved in the affairs of the Firm, even then she was having some influence on the affairs of the Company, therefore 43 FIRs have been lodged against her. Sri Murtaza has also submitted that when the present applicant had applied for anticipatory bail, she given undertaking before the Court that she shall return the amount to the bonafide and genuine investors etc. but no efforts have been made by the present applicant to return the aforesaid amount. However, Sri Murtaza has stated that today again the same statement is being given by the counsel for the applicant on her behalf, therefore, the present applicant should abide by her undertaking, in case she is granted bail. However, considering her conduct, she is not entitled for bail, therefore, her bail application may be rejected.

¶14

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that the present applicant was not directly involved in the affairs of the Company nor was in interaction with the persons who have invested the money in the Firm to purchase the property for the purpose of investment; husband of the present applicant was in jail and he died during the judicial custody and her son, namely, Atul Kumar Verma is also in jail for quite some time, therefore, the genuine bonafide money of the investors etc. could not be returned; on same allegations, almost all the aforesaid criminal cases have been registered against the present applicant for the reason that her late husband and her son, who is in jail, were involved in the affairs of the Firm; the present applicant is an old aged lady and is entitled for providing the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. and her undertaking that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings

¶15

and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant- Smt. Mithlesh Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶18

(i) 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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.

¶21

(iv) 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 her in accordance with law.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶23

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 24.4.2024 kkv/

¶25

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

Smt. Mithlesh Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Mithlesh Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Pankaj Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Waseem @ Chhotu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Sageer Alias Mohd. Sagir vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home) Lucknow and Another

Mohar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Deptt. U.P. Govt.Lko. and 2 Others

Satyam Kashyap and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another