Disposed

Jeet Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2025CRLR/117/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a criminal revision against a Section 138 NI Act conviction and one-year sentence upheld on appeal. Considering detention already undergone and unlikelihood of early hearing, court enlarged the applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties, directing deposit of 50% of fine.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist Jeet Bahadur released on bail on personal bond and two sureties; deposit of 50% of fine within one month directed, remaining 50% stayed.

Jeet Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 30

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 117 of 2025

¶3

Revisionist :- Jeet Bahadur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Alok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶5

(Order on Memo of Revision)

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Perused the impugned judgment.

¶8

Admit.

¶9

Summon the trial court record.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State has accepted notice on behalf of the State Opposite Party No.1.

¶11

Let notice be issued to the opposite party No.2.

¶12

Steps be taken within a week from today.

¶13

List in due course for hearing.

¶14

(Order on Application for Bail : C.M. Application No.1 of 2025)

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶16

The revisionist/applicant, Jeet Bahadur, seeks bail in this revision, which has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2025 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No.11/2023, rejecting the Criminal Appeal filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III/Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli in Complaint Case No.687/2016, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Raebareli, convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 138 N.I. Act for one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,60,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, the revisionist was

¶17

directed to further undergo one month additional imprisonment.

¶18

According to the prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the accused fraudulently took Rs.2,00,000/- from the victim and in return thereof, he promised to provide a plot for construction of home. Thereafter, when the accused did not provide the plot, he returned Rs.20,000/- to the victim and a cheque of Rs.1,80,000/- was issued by the accused to the victim. However, when the victim produced the cheque at the bank, the same was dishonored due to insufficient fund as well as mismatch of signature.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the revisionist was on bail during the pendency of appeal before the learned trial court and the same has never been misused by the revisionist. He further submits that there is no likelihood of this revision to be heard at an early date or in near future. He further submits that the revisionist does not have any criminal history.

¶20

He further submits that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-III/Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli while passing order dated 27.01.2023 as well as learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli while passing the order dated 20.01.2025 have totally overlooked the evidence available on record and they have passed the impugned orders without application of judicial mind, as such, the same are perverse, illegal and arbitrary in nature.

¶21

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the revisionist have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the revisionist that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.

¶22

Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this revision being allowed after final hearing takes place.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶24

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early hearing and conclusion of revision, this Court is of the view that the revisionist may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Let the revisionist- Jeet Bahadur convicted and sentenced in aforesaid case, be released on bail on his executing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶26

The revisionist is directed to deposit 50% of the fine imposed by the learned trial court within one month after release from the jail and the remaining 50% of the amount shall remain stayed.

¶27

On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the trial court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶28

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

¶29

( Om Prakash Shukla,J. )

¶30

Order Date :- 28.1.2025 Saurabh

¶31

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

Jeet Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeet Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Harichandra and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mangiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others

Kalpna Gautam vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Sec. Deptt. of Civil and another

Mohd. Rafi vs Addl. Principal Judge Iind Family Court Barabanki and 2 Others

Prashant Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Syed Saqib Ahmad @ Syed Saqib and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another