Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29033 of 2019 Applicant :- Pramod Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey,Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel appearing for the State.
The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.1775 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as the applicant has not committed any crime. The applicant is in jail since 10.04.2018. The charge-sheet has been filed on 08.04.2019. The previous criminal history of eight cases have already been explained and the applicant is on bail in all cases.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that two proceedings cannot be initiated in any criminal offence either complaint or state case. In the present case, a proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act is also pending. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another; (2018) 3 SCC 22.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the applicant is a property dealer. He is a habitual offender of Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC as there are eight criminal cases of same nature are pending against him. There is a chance of tampering the prosecution witnesses, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is admitted case that the applicant have a criminal history of eight cases of same nature, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender.
I have perused the judgment cited by learned Counsel for the applicant for adjudicating his argument that if a proceeding Section 138 N.I. Act is pending before the competent court, the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC is not made out.
After considering the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, I do not find it to be a fit case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 akverma