Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4280 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohammad Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saiful Islam Siddiqui,Tahira Kazmi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Tahira Kazmi, Ms. Saiful Islam Siddiqui, Sri Vikash Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Zaid Arshad, Mr. Arshad Hamid, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Singh and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, brief holders for the State of U.P and perused the material available on record.
By way of the instant application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0190 of 2018, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi.
The urge made on behalf of the applicant is to the impact that in this case, initially proceeding under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was drawn which proceeding on being challenged before this Court was stayed whereupon the the informant devised the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging the same facts made in the complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and obtained order from the Magistrate concerned for registration of the case. The investigation ensued and charge sheet was filed against the applicant. This is absolutely bogus case, for the reason that no carpets or articles was ever received by the applicant. The averments made to the contrary is without base. The post dated cheque bearing date 20.04.2017 was given on 17.01.2017 which itself is indicative of fact that the carpets/goods meant to be supplied were not received as yet. To say the applicant received carpets/goods in 178 pieces worth for Rs.19,54,728/- is without any proof. In case the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant does not bear any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 08.01.2019.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. being assisted by the brief holders for the State has submitted that the very invoice placed on record is indicative of fact that the carpets/goods worth Rs.19,54,728/- was supplied, however, only part payment for Rs.5,71,401/- was given and the rest of the money was promised to be paid, however, cheque bounced on presentation and the amount whereof was not paid. If the defence version is accepted that he did not make endorsement in the invoice then the same ipso facto stands falsified in view of fact that the applicant has not taken any legal steps against the claim that he never signed invoice issued by the informant. The invoice was signed by the applicant. No doubt, cheque was issued by the brother of the applicant but in the capacity of the partner of the company/firm of the applicant.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the material brought on record. No good ground is made out for bail.
Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected, at this stage.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall not be construed to have any reflection on merit of the case.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 rkg