2020 (9) TMI 1029 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail Application - Dishonor of Cheque - case of applicant is that applicant is the only person who is indulge in fraudulent activities and also cheated the informant, but could not explain the proceeding initiated against the informant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is also pertaining to receiving money for providing job - HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant -Ashish Sharma, involved in case crime No. 366 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504 and 506 IPC, police station -Prem Nagar, District -Jhansi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned. It is further provided that this bail order available on the official website of the High Court will be taken to be the authentic one and certified copy shall be submitted before that court concerned as soon as it is issued. Bail allowed subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
2. Allegations of fraudulent activities against the applicant.
3. Criminal history of the applicant and the informant.
4. Consideration of bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a bail application by the applicant, who is involved in a criminal case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant sought bail on the grounds of being innocent and falsely implicated. The counsel argued that the informant, who accused the applicant, is also involved in fraudulent activities and has a criminal history. The court considered the material on record and granted bail to the applicant, subject to specific conditions to ensure his cooperation with the trial process.

2. The applicant's counsel contended that the applicant is innocent and wrongly accused, highlighting that all transactions took place at the informant's residence. It was also mentioned that the informant himself has a criminal history and was involved in a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court noted these arguments but did not express an opinion on the case's merits while granting bail to the applicant based on the circumstances presented.

3. The criminal histories of both the applicant and the informant were crucial factors in the bail application. The informant was accused of receiving money for providing a job and was facing proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the other hand, the applicant had a history of three criminal cases, as explained in the affidavit. Despite these backgrounds, the court considered the possibility of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence and decided to grant bail with stringent conditions to ensure compliance.

4. The judgment reflects a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case before granting bail to the applicant. The court emphasized that the bail order should be followed strictly, with specific conditions imposed to prevent any misuse of liberty. These conditions included not tampering with evidence, cooperating in the trial process, attending court dates, and refraining from criminal activities. The judgment also outlined consequences for breaching the bail conditions, ensuring accountability and adherence to the legal requirements.