Allowed

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024BAIL/3587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in an FIR registered for criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery. The court observed that the core dispute involved salary dues and found no prima facie material that the applicant had misused identity cards to defraud the complainant. Bail was granted with strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with conditions to file undertaking against adjournments, remain present personally at key stages, and ensure court appearance to avoid proceedings under Section 174-A IPC.

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26687

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3587 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Shivanshu Goswami

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Shri Yash Pandey learned counsel who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant which is taken on record.

¶9

The applicant Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava has sought bail in FIR/Crime No.0061 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC relating to police station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶10

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the complainant had lodged an FIR on 13.02.2022 which was initially lodged under Sections 406 and 506 IPC. The contents of the FIR indicates that the applicant is also a director of Sauhard Builder Private Limited and Sauhard Infracom Private Limited. It is also stated in the FIR that the complainant was working in the said company as a person collecting the funds. There are certain disputes between the complainant and the applicant relating to the payment of salary. Since the applicant did not clear the salary dues, consequently the FIR came to be allowed wherein apart from raising the issue of nonpayment of salary, it was also alleged that the applicant had multiple identity documents such as two PAN and two Adhaar Cards. Considering the aforesaid submissions, further Sections of 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC were also added. It is urged that in so far as the averments made by the complainant in the FIR is concerned, it clearly indicates that a civil dispute relating to payment of salary is the issue between the applicant and the complainant. There is no material in terms of averments made in the FIR or otherwise by which it could be deciphered that the applicant by using the alleged identity documents has defrauded the complainant or cause a harm to him.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and so also Shri Yash Pandey who submits that the applicant is misusing multiple identity cards to dupe number of persons because of which a number of FIR have been lodged against the applicant.

¶12

This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record it reflects that the core complaint against the applicant is in respect of payment of salary dues. Nothing, prima facie , could be pointed out that the applicant has misused his multiple identity cards nor the said cards have been used to dupe or cause any financial harm to the complainant.

¶13

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 he 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.

¶14

Let the applicant Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witness 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.

¶17

(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 Code.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse 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 fail to appear before the

¶19

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.

¶20

(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 him in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 ank

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Akansha Dixit Vs the Prin. Judge Family Court Lko. and Another

Mohammad Hashim Husain Vs Consolidation Officer, Beekapur, Ayodhya and Others

Sarla Devi and Another Vs Civil Judge (S.D.) Sitapur and 18 Others

Pawan Kumar @ Pappu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Lko.

Sameer Kumar @ Surendra Mohan Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Faisal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Ors.