Allowed

Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 May 2024BAIL/5788/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by a woman accused with others in a cheating/criminal breach of trust case against company office bearers. Noting her resignation as director before the alleged offence and bail granted in 12 of 37 related FIRs, the court released her on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Neelam Verma released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, with conditions against tampering and requiring presence at trial.

Neelam Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51836

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5788 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neelam Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla,Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 740 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next added that the applicant was employed as a Director in the company on 1.5.2018 and had resigned on 27.02.2019, as such she has nothing to do with the alleged offence and further added that the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail under similar circumstances, whereafter, several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against her and the circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Further submitted that in all, 37 FIRs are instituted against the office bearers of the company under similar circumstances and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in twelve of such cases. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.7.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the present applicant and after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, she is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after

¶11

perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant has resigned from the post of Director of the company on 27.02.2019, though this fact has been rebutted. Further, the applicant has been enlarged on bail in 12 cases out of 37 and she is languishing in jail since 29.07.2023 and the applicant has also undertaken that she will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Neelam Verma involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of

¶19

the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Mayank

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Raj Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lok Bhawan Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Saddam @ Saddam Husain and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Zeba Faizan Alias Jeba vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Anothers

Sita Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cooperative Lko and 2 Others

Om Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 4 Others

Dr. Rahul Agarwal @ Rahul Agarwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others