Allowed

Dastgeer Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024BAIL/9590/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench granted bail to the applicant. The court found no cogent evidence connecting the applicant to the offences and noted his lack of prior criminal history, leading to the conclusion that it was a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence and attending all court dates.

Dastgeer Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83858

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9590 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dastgeer Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Arun Chand Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0087 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and 66D I.T. Act P.S.- Cyber Crime District -Lucknow.

¶8

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 ulterior motive. He submits that in fact as per the prosecution story, the applicant has no direct role contrary, it has been alleged that he helped the Branch Manager while getting arranged one person and except apart there is no specific role. He next submits that no amount has ever been incredited in the account of the applicant as is alledged to have misappropriated by committing cheat & fraud. He submitted that the Investigation Officer without collecting cogent piece of evidence against the applicant, has filed the chargesheet and there is no complaint that the applicant has ever absconded from the investigation proceedings. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history as mentioned in paragraph no. 32 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 18.06.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

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, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

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 18.06.2024; the applicant has no previous criminal history as mentioned in paragraph no. 32 of the bail application; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant- Dastgeer Alam 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

(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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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 cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Mayank

¶20

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

Dastgeer Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dastgeer Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Sangam Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sumit Chauhan @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ayan @ Shoeb Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Radheshyam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Jang Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Satish Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another