Allahabad High Court
Netrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 26 September, 2022
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38341 of 2022 Applicant :- Netrapal Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aushim Luthra,Indrakesh Kumar Sharma,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Katyayini,Krishnarjun,A/K0612 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J.
1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Aushim Luthra and Shri Indrakesh Kumar Shrma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Brijesh Sahay, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Katyayini, learned counsel for the respondent - 1st informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 957/2021, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station- Highway, District - Mathura.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that the first informant, namely, Narendra Singh, and the applicant were partners in a firm and they used to take contract for construction. In the year 2018, a dispute arose between them with regard to the amount which was due and duly paid and adjusted and thereafter, on 09.08.2021, the first informant, just to harass and humiliate the applicant, filed a complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereafter, an FIR was lodged against the applicant. It is further submitted that from a reading of the FIR and the statement of the first informant would reveal that the entire dispute relates to a civil dispute relating to return of money and assigning criminal liability to the same is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that despite the applicant participating in the investigation and being exonerated by the IO by way of final reports on two occasions, the applicant has been arrested in the present case in a very mala fide manner. It is further submitted that no fraud or cheating had been committed by the applicant upon the first informant. He further submits that there are four criminal history of the applicant, out of which in two cases final reports have been submitted, in one case applicant has not been charge sheeted and in one case, the entire proceedings have been stayed by this Court. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 19.07.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak. He prays that the applicant is entitled to enlarge on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the first informant has submitted that the present case is squarely covered under section 420 IPC as all the ingredients mentioned therein are fully complied with. It is further submitted there is specific allegation in the FIR that the applicant has made false bills and vouchers bearing fake signatures of the informant. It is further submitted that the present case is not a civil dispute as fake bills and vouchers have been prepared by the applicant, which bear fake signatures of the first informant. It is further submitted that the applicant took money, but did not return the same and neither the materials, which were promised, had been supplied, nor any amount as per the Memorandum of Understanding has been paid to the first informant. He further submits that the applicant is not entitled to enlarge on bail.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
6. Let applicant, namely, Netrapal Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure the applicant's 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.
7. Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :-26/09/2022 Amit Mishra