Allowed

Ramdev Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC16 May 2024BAIL/5326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered a bail application for an accused in a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust regarding a chit fund company. The court noted that while the charge sheet was filed, there was no risk of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence, and other co-accused had received bail. The application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties

Ramdev Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37473

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5326 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramdev Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Utkarsh Kumar,Ajeet Kumar Mishra,Akash Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

It is submitted that the complainant states herself to be an Advisor of Bhoomi Shakti Nidhi Ltd., the company duly registered under the Companies Act engaging into business of chit fund. The applicant along with other co-accused are said to be promoters and agent of the said company.

¶11

It is alleged in the FIR that with the help of the Advisors, the Company had invited deposits and the complainant being one of the Advisors was instrumental in procuring funds for the Company and at her behest a sum of Rs.80 lacs was deposited with the company. It is further alleged that the Directors of the Company by resorting unlawful means had diverted the funds, however, removed all the necessary records such as the ledger, cash book and other equipment including computers and laptops and by affixing a lock on the office they have fled leaving a large number of investors in lurch. It is in the aforesaid context that the instant FIR came to be lodged.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the coaccused namely Rajbahadur Maurya at one point of time was the Director of the Company Bhoomi Shakti Nidhi Ltd., however, much prior on time he had furnished his resignation with effect from 04.11.2020 and his resignation was also accepted by the Board of Director and the information was also conveyed to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.

¶13

It is, thus, urged that after resignation the said co-accused had moved on and he had no authority to indulge into the affairs of the company.

¶14

It is further pointed out that the other co-accused namely Mukesh Kumar Maurya who was the Director of the Company has falsely lodged FIR only against the co-accused Rajbahadur Maurya on 21.08.2021 which is registered as Case Crime no.483 of 2021, who had approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application no.11040 of 2021 wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 04.10.2021 granted protection to the applicant. The coaccused Ramsewak Maurya has been granted bail vide order dated 10.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application no.4967 of 2024.

¶15

Submission is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Chargesheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 18.12.2023 and he has roots in the society. Accordingly, there is no apprehension that the applicant may flee from justice or may influence any witness or tamper with the evidence. In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned AGA, on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the prayer for bail application.

¶17

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as 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. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant Ramdev Maurya involved in the aforesaid

¶19

FIR/Case Crime Number 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 16.5.2024/Harshita

¶26

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

Ramdev Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdev Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow

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

State of U.P.through Collector Lucknow and 2 Others Vs Sri Kant Singh Chauhan

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru. Divisional Manager Vs Shiv Shankar Gupta and Others

Mohd. Maqsood @ Laden Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arvind and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Durgawati Yadav vs Saurabh Kumar Yadav

Ram Sahai and Another vs Addl. Director of Consolidation Administration U.P. Lko. and Another