Allowed

Rudra Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2024BAIL/4440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail to applicant Rudra Prakash Pandey in a Section 409 IPC case. Court held no apprehension of flight or witness tampering exists despite allegations of fund misappropriation, conditioning release on bonds and personal sureties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release applicant on bail after furnishing personal bond with two sureties.

Rudra Prakash Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33014

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4440 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rudra Prakash Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.852 of 2023, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Lakhimpur District Lakhimpur Kheri during trial.

¶8

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

¶9

It is submitted that as per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant has been an agent of M/s S.S Commercial Company which has a franchise of Tanishq to jewellery. As per the version contained in the FIR certain scheme were launched by the commercial company in order to boost the sale. One of such schemes provided an incentive to deposit money in monthly installements of various denominations and upon expiry of the agreed term, the customers will be entitled to purchase jewellery from the shop subject to contribution made by the commercial company as bonus for the customers.

¶10

It is further stated that the applicant had received monthly installments from customers but it was not deposited in the account maintained by the Commercial company and after having received certain information, it was found that the applicant had been receiving the monthly installment but not depositing it in the account of commercial company and from the customers he has siphoned a sum of Rs.8 lacs and in this context the FIR has been lodged.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the

¶12

applicant was agent of the said commercial company namely M/s S.S Commercial Company. On account of enhancement in sale the applicant was entitled to the commission of Rs.1.5 lacs, however, upon demanding the same it was refused and rather the commercial company falsely implicated the applicant and also extracted statement from the applicant under compulsion and coercion wherein it is indicated that the applicant is said to have admitted his guilt. It is also pointed out that none of the customers has given the complaint nor there is any incriminating material to indicate that the applicant was involved in such siphoning of funds. The statement of certain witnesses which were recorded in order to falsely implicate the applicant are at variance with the statement which was given at the time of lodging of the FIR.

¶13

It is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.09.2023 and is not having any criminal history and has roots in the society. Charge sheet has been filed. It is in the aforesaid backdrop there is no apprehension that the applicant is in a position to influence any witness or tamper with evidence. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned AGA while opposing the bail application on the basis of material available in the case diary submits that during course of investigation it has revealed that various customers had deposited /given the money to the applicant which instead of depositing in the account of the company M/s S.S Commercial Company was rather transferred in his own account which is evident from the bank statement of the applicant maintained with the Union Bank of India. In such circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the material on record wherein the aforesaid amount has been credited or duped the customers is subject matter of trial 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.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Rudra Prakash Pandey 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:-

¶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) 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 :- 27.4.2024 Harshita

¶25

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

Rudra Prakash Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Prakash Pandey 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

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Chandra Mauli Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Onkar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Navratan Singh vs Union of India through Secy. Road Transport and Highways and 4 Others

Durgawati Yadav vs Saurabh Kumar Yadav

Vidhyawati and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others