Allahabad High Court
Priyranjan Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 19 March, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40038
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42967 of 2024
Applicant :- Priyranjan Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Aushim Luthra,Pranav Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amarnath Tripathi,G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Supplementary counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Aushim Luthra and Shri Pranay Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amarnath Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for State.
There are allegations in the First Information Report that first informant received a mail from Kia Motors India allegedly sent by one Chirag Shukla, claiming himself to be a Dealer Development Executive of aforesaid motor company. He informed that informant has been selected for setting up the agency of Kia Motors.Thereafter first informant transferred total amount of Rs. 71,80,000/- in different bank accounts on the instructions of Chirag Shukla.Later he came to know that fraud has been committed against him, hence First Information Report was lodged by him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the First Information Report nor he is connected with the alleged crime.He has further submitted that confessional statement of co-accused, Deepak Kumar,Prabhakar Kumar,Himanshu Rai, Saurabh Kumar, Alok Kumar and Abhishek were recorded wherein name of the applicant was not there. In the second confessional statement of co-accused also his name was not mentioned.Thereafter charge sheet was submitted against other co-accused.It has been alleged that the IP address using which the online transactions were made from the Fraud Accounts of Kia Motors India was being operated was traced back to the mobile phone of the applicant.It is further submitted that not a single penny has been received in the applicant's account.The IP address is said to be dynamic and not static and it changes as per the location and IP address of the applicant can also be used through mobile hotspot or Wifi to connect to the internet and use the internet/ mobile banking to transfer the money.
The applicant is in jail since 2.10.2024 and has criminal history of one case in the State of Bihar.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of applicant and submitted that mobile phone of the applicant and co-accused were found connected with IP address and all belong to State of Bihar.They conspired together and committed alleged offence.In case applicant is enlarged on bail , he will not be traced out since he belongs to State of Bihar.
After considering the rival contentions, this court finds that no specific reply has been given to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant by other side. Applicant is in jail since 2.10.2024 and there is no credible evidence against him as yet.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 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 recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677. and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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, Priyranjan Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 63 of 2024 , under Sections-417,420,465,467,468,471,120-B and 411 IPC, and section 66-C,66-D,74 of Information Technology Act, 2008 Police Station- Cyber Crime , District- Varanasi , be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two local sureties 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.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
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.
Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.
The registrar(Compliance)of this court is directed to communicate this order to the trial court for compliance within three weeks.
Order Date :- 19.3.2025
Atul kr. sri.
