Omprakash Jangid vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Omprakash Jangid. The Court considered the facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicant's defense that the bounced cheques were due to financial constraints during the Covid period and that it was a matter of delayed payment. The applicant's assurance to repay the money was also taken into account. The Court noted the applicant's prolonged custody of over two and a half years and the concession made by the learned A.G.A. that the trial might take a long time to conclude. The Court found that a case for bail was made out. The applicant was released on his personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions including not seeking adjournment when witnesses are present, remaining present on each date fixed for trial, and appearing for charge framing and recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The addresses of the applicant and sureties were to be verified before release.

Facts

The applicant, Omprakash Jangid, Director of a firm registered with GST, is seeking bail in a case involving charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR alleges that the applicant placed an order for 1000kg of almonds worth over Rs. 5,75,000/- from the first informant's firm. The cheques issued for payment bounced due to insufficient funds, and the applicant's company staff and office disappeared upon attempted contact. The applicant has been in custody for over two and a half years. The transaction amount is stated to be Rs. 5,75,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 26 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506, 120-B, and 34 IPC, considering the allegations of cheating and fraud involving bounced cheques and disappearance of company premises. Contentions: Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant contends that his firm is GST registered and he had no intention to defraud the first informant. He argues that the bounced cheques were due to financial difficulties during the Covid period, and it is a matter of delayed payment. He highlights that he has been in custody for over two and a half years and assures repayment of the amount upon release. He also states that his criminal history has been explained in his affidavit. Revenue (State): The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application but conceded that the applicant has been in custody for a significant period and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.