Allahabad High Court
Jaiprakash vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:137878 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31249 of 2024 Applicant :- Jaiprakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Sri Ankit Agrawal, learned Advocate, filed his power on behalf of informant, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajendra Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2024, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bulandshahr, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 13.01.2024 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC against applicant and three others including co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal and according to FIR, informant purchased a land from co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal in the year 2018 and subsequently he came to know that sale deed of the same plot has been executed by co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal in favour of some other person. It is further mentioned in the FIR that applicant was also involved in present fraud and cheating along with co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal and others.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that merely on the basis of vague allegation that applicant also involved in the present matter along with co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal, he has been made accused in the present matter and there is no evidence against the applicant, which can show that applicant committed any cheating.
6. He further submitted that actually applicant is the supervisor of co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal, who was colonizer and only due to this reason, he has been made accused in the present matter. He further submitted that however, from the bail rejection order, it reflects that from the account of applicant, transactions of more than Rs. one crore were made but in paragraph no. 21 of the affidavit, applicant has specifically made an averment that he is the employee of co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal and Sudhir Kumar Goyal on his name opened a bank account and used to do the transactions and with all these transactions, applicant is having no concern. He further submitted that applicant is just an employee of co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal on monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/- and there is no question that he could do the transactions of more than Rs. one crore.
7. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 10 other cases but entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application and however, all the cases were of cases of cheating and fraud but in all the cases, with almost similar allegations, applicant has been made accused, being one of the employee of co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal.
8. He further submitted that all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate-I Class with maximum punishment of seven years and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 20.04.2024.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant and co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal are having a gang and there is nexus between both of them and this fact is evident from the fact that from the bank account of applicant, transactions of more than Rs. one crore were made and applicant is also having criminal history of 10 other cases but both the counsels could not dispute the fact that as far as allegations of present case is concerned, there is no specific allegation against the applicant with regard to cheating and fraud and specific allegation of cheating and fraud has been made against co-accurate Sudhir Kumar Goyal.
10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.
11. From the record, however, it reflects that applicant is the employee of co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal and from his account transactions of more than Rs. one crore were also made and he is also having criminal history of 10 other cases of fraud and cheating but considering the fact that applicant is the employee of co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal, the averment made in paragraph nos. 21 and 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.
12. Further, considering the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that only being employee of co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal, applicant has been made accused in all these cases like present one, also cannot be completely ruled out.
13. As far as merit of the present case is concerned, there is no specific allegation against the applicant that he committed fraud and cheating and allegation of fraud and cheating is against co-accused Sudhir Kumar Goyal and it appears on the basis of general and vague allegations applicant has been made accused in the present matter.
14. Further, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate-I Class with maximum punishment of 7 years and applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.04.2024.
15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
17. Let the applicant- Jaiprakash be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 28.8.2024 KK Patel