Allowed

Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024BAIL/3682/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow granted bail to the applicant charged with cheating and dishonestly taking property. The court found no incriminating evidence and noted the maximum penalty of seven years, noting no apprehension of interference with witnesses or evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each, subject to strict conditions of appearance and no adjournments.

Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27315

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3682 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mrs.Suniti Sachan,Gangeshwar Pandey

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

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

¶9

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No. 65 of 2014 under Sections 406, 420, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the version of the FIR wherein it has been alleged by the informant that her husband went to the ATM machine located near SBI Bank but due to some technicalities, there was no money so he went to the UCO Bank ATM Machine for withdrawal of cash. A person behind him took the card from him as a gesture of help and as there was no guard in the ATM cabin or outside room, the person fraudulently took the ATM card and left the place by giving his fake card to complainant's husband. Later her account was debited 14 times and a total of Rs. 1,14,500/- was deducted from the account of the complainant.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no such evidence which could prove the involvement of applicant in the commission of crime, the I.O. shows the false recovery from the applicant as well as the alleged ATM card was not recovered from him; the I.O. does not collect any CCTV footage of the concerned ATM Machine where the actual incident happened and could resolve the issue and also the applicant does not have any criminal history and he is languishing in Jail since 12.02.2024.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the material on record, there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant at this stage, moreover, all the

¶14

sections with which the applicant is charged are all up to maximum 7 years.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as 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.

¶16

Let the applicant Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh involved in Case Crime No. 65 of 2014 under Sections 406, 420, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.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.

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶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

¶22

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 :- 2.4.2024 Asheesh

¶25

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

Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil Singh @ Vishal Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

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.

Nand Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and Others

Harishankar @ Dahpel and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rachit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.