Allowed

Shama Parveen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024BAIL/7793/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7793 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Shama Parveen accused of cheating and forgery under IPC 419, 420 and Information Technology Act sections 66C, 66D. The court found no cogent evidence against her and granted bail subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to specific conditions.

Shama Parveen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74624

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7793 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shama Parveen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit as well as supplementary affidavit filed today are taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 15 of 2023, under sections 419 and 420 IPC and sections 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act P.S.Cyber Crime District - Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to anonymity though, she was never involved in committing the offence. He added that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect her with the offence and has also shown the other falsity in the story of prosecution. He next added that there is a case criminal history against the applicant which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2024 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

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

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2024; there is no cogent piece of

¶12

evidence against the applicant so as to connect her with the offence coupled with the fact that there is a case criminal history against the applicant which has been explained and also the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(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

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to

¶20

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 Mayank

¶23

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

Shama Parveen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shama Parveen 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

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anand Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Shivam Singh @ Aryan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Govt. Lko

Sadan Kumar @ Chandan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Neelam Gond vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others