Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC15 May 2024BAIL/3816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application during trial in a chit fund fraud case involving cheating, embezzlement and criminal breach of trust charges against a former company director. The court noted parity with other erstwhile directors already bailed, no flight risk or tampering apprehension, and released the applicant on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including trial attendance and non-tampering with witnesses or evidence.

Mukesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44971

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3816 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Second supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

The record indicates that on 05.04.2024, two weeks time was granted to the learned AGA to file counter affidavit. Again, on 29.05.2024, the matter was listed but till date counter affidavit has not been filed by the State.

¶8

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

¶9

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.779 of 2022 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 409 & 201 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Raibareli during trial.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated merely on account of the fact that the applicant was the Director of the Company Bhumi Shakti Nidhi ltd at an anterior point of time and despite the applicant having submitted his resignation which was accepted by the Company on 07.11.2021 and thereafter the applicant did not have any transactions or relations with the Company yet he has been apprehended and is languishing in jail since 18.12.2023.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the averments contained in the FIR the applicant and the other co-accused with the help of Advisors were instrumental in collecting money. This money instead of being utilized in the chit fund to return the benefit to its members the Company shut

¶13

down its office and has embezzled the amount leaving the investors in lurch.

¶14

Submission is that the applicant was an erstwhile Director and since November, 2021 he had nothing to do with the affairs of the Company, there is no allegation against the applicant that he has specifically embezzled any amount and the allegations are against the Company. It is further urged that certain other accused who were the erstwhile Director have been given the benefit and enlarged on bail. In such circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶15

It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since 18.12.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, despite having granted opportunity of more than two months, counter affidavit could not be filed nor any clear complicity of the applicant has been pointed out. The State also could not indicate that the applicant who has submitted his resignation was accepted or not or whether any amount from the account of the Company was operated by the applicant post his resignation in November, 2021.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as including the fact that the other erstwhile Directors have been granted bail vide orders dated 30.04.2024, 10.05.2024 and 16.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application nos.4553 of 2024, 4967 of 2024 and 5326 of 2024 and learned AGA did not express any apprehension that the applicant is at flight risk or influence any witness or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Mukesh Kumar Maurya involved in the above-mentioned 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:-

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Harshita

¶28

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

Mukesh Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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

Prayagraj City Transport Service Ltd. Thru. M.D. Vs Jaitun Nisha and Others

Ramkrishna Jaladhar Parai Vs Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko.

Prayagraj City Transport Service Ltd. Thru Managing Director Vs Smt. Sita Gupta and Ors.

Aditya Singh Alias Major vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajendra Prasad vs Dy. Director Consolidation Dist. Sultanpur and 8 Others

Dev Raj Singh vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Prayagraj Thru. Chairman and Others