Allowed

Amir Shah v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024BAIL/9403/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case, noting no funds were credited to his account unlike a co-accused. The applicant was released on personal bond and sureties subject to specific attendance and non-interference conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the amount decided by the court below, subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78166

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9403 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amir Shah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 13 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Bahraich.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next submits that identically situated co-accused, namely, Nagendra has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9608 of 2024 and the case of the present applicant is on better footings, as no amount, whatsoever is said to be misappropriated, has ever been incredited in the account of the applicant, though so far as the co-accused Nagendra is concerned, Rs.70,000/- was incredited in his account. He next submits that the applicant has been implicated in the case without any cogent piece of evidence and the police has filed chargesheet. He next submits that the matter is triable by Magistrate and the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 11.06.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he could not dispute the fact that the identically situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that no amount has been incredited in the account of the applicant; similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail and

¶11

the case of the applicant is on better footings, as Rs. 70,000/was credited in the account of co-accused, namely, Nagendra, who has already been granted bail; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant; the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 11.06.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel 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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Amir Shah , 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 the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to

¶19

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 :- 25.11.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

Amir Shah v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Shah v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Ajay Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addil. Chief Secy. Govt. Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shanti Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Utkarsh Pratap Singh @ Prince vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Amit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sunil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.