Allahabad High Court
Thakur Manoj Singh vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94474
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35857 of 2021
Applicant :- Thakur Manoj Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Kumar Singh,Anurag Kumar,Indra Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vaibhav Goswami
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vibhav Goswami, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Ifrah Isam, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.1057 of 2019, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 504 and 507 I.P.C., Police Station- Colonelganj, District- Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the informant is stated to have given an amount of Rs.42 lakhs through two cheques to the applicant as an advance money for giving him a flat at Mumbai, Maharashtra. Subsequently, Rs. 9 lakhs further are stated to have been given to the applicant for other expenses. The applicant is stated to have refused to execute the sale-deed of the said flat. He kept on dillydallying with the informant. The applicant is stated to have issued several cheques to the informant and kept on saying that the same should be deposited in the bank only after he directs him. One of the cheques is stated to have been dishonored at the bank. As such, the applicant has duped the informant of his hard earned money.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The case of Negotiable Instruments Act has been converted into that of Indian Penal Code by the informant. No offence under Sections 420, 419 I.P.C. is made out and to the maximum the case falls within the purview of Section 406 I.P.C. only in which the maximum punishment is three years and the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.3.2021. As such, he has been incarcerated for a period of more than three years, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on account of period of incarceration.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of 19 cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as in two of those cases the investigating agency was pleased to expunge the case against the applicant and he has annexed the bail orders of three cases. Learned counsel has further stated that in almost all the cases the investigating agency was pleased to file closure report and only few cases are pending against the applicant and the Case Crime No.113 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C. is being investigated by EOW, Mumbai. As such, the applicant cannot be kept languishing in jail on account of criminal antecedents, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.
7. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance on para-7 of the judgment in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed:
"7. .......... The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting bail to the accused Vikram Singh upon considering relevant materials. No ex-facie error in the order has been shown by the appellant which would establish exercise of such discretion to be improper. We Accordingly sustain the order of the High Court granting bail. This appeal is dismissed."
8. Learned counsel has further stated that in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Supreme Court in para 30 has observed:
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."
9. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Mohammad Ubaid vs. State of UP, 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1041, whereby the judgments of Prabhakar Tewari (supra) and Ash Mohammad (supra) have been relied upon.
10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was proclaimed offender and a reward of Rs.25,000/- was announced against him. It is further argued that applicant has criminal history of 22 other cases in addition to the instant case and the criminal history has not been properly explained. More than half of the criminal history stand unexplained. The filing of closure report also does not fall within the purview of explanation of criminal antecedents of the applicant.
11. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail application.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the rival submissions, complicity of the accused and the criminal antecedents of the applicant which has not been properly explained, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
13. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
