Court No. - 24
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25456 of 2017 Applicant :- Anil Hudda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Moeez Uddin
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed any fraud. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted. If the entire prosecution case is taken into consideration, then also it is purely a business transaction. If certain amount was not paid to the informant, recovery suit ought to have been filed for recovery of the same. Criminal prosecution under the strength of facts mentioned in the F.I.R. cannot be permitted. It is next contended that all the cases shown as criminal history against the applicant are related to the offence under section 138 N.I. Act, which cannot be the basis to reject the bail application of the applicant especially where ingredients of the offence levelled in the matter are not available. It is further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.5.2017 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that payment was not made by the applicant despite receiving the goods. Demand was made, but was refused. Address has also been changed. Thus, the offences levelled in this matter are very much attracted against the applicant. It is further contended that there are several cases pending against the applicant at different places of the offence under section 138 N.I. Act.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Anil Hudda involved in Case Crime No. 222 of 2016 under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (not less than rupees four lacs) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 ss