Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Shakti Singh vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|21 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31711 of 2018 Applicant :- Shakti Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Shakti Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.
101 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pallavpuram, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. The allegation in the First Information Report is that Flat no. 803,in M/s Akanksha Hights Colony Bypas, Meerut was allotted to the informant and he has paid Rs. 19,90,410/- for the same, but the informant, who is director of the M/s Akanksha Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. has allotted the aforesaid flat to one, Satyendra. The allegation is that applicant has wrongly allotted the flat to a third person, Satyendra when the money was paid by the informant for the flat No. 803. His money has been misappropriated by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that it was bonafide mistake that single flat was allotted to the two allottees. It is further argued that applicant tried to convince the other allottee, Stayendra, to leave the flat but he refused. The applicant had approached the first informant and assured him that in case the flat in question is not allotted to the first informant, another flat of equal value in the upcoming Tower of the same project shall be allotted to him.
The learned counsel for the applicant argued that if informant does not accepts the alternative flat, the money deposited by the informant in the year 2016 shall be returned to him.
The applicant is languishing in jail since 9.6.2018.The criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in paragraph-22 of the affidavit filed in support of the application.
List this bail application on 26.11.2018.
In the meantime applicant shall either allot the alternative flat to the informant, or if the alternative flat is not accepted by the informant , the applicant shall return the amount deposited by the informant along with 7 % interest from the date of deposit of the amount to the informant.
The applicant is directed to be released on bail till the further hearing of this case on 26.11.2018.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Shakti Singh involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Atul kr. sri.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shakti Singh vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
21 August, 2018
Judges
  • Siddharth
Advocates
  • Manish Tiwary Ashwini Kumar Awasthi