CASE TITLE:
Alok Jha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
DATE OF ORDER:
April 24, 2024
BENCH:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajoy Bhanot
PARTIES:
Applicant: Alok Jha
Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh
SUBJECT:
The case involved allegations pertaining to offences such as cheating, forgery, and cybercrime, as well as sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act. Sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 471, and 411 of the IPC and Section 66D of the IT Act were among the specifics that were discussed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Indian Penal Code:
- Section 406:
It deals with criminal breach of trust.
- Section 419:
It deals with punishment for cheating by personation.
- Section 420 :
It deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 467:
It deals with forgery of valuable things, will etc.
- Section 468:
It deals with forgery for purpose of cheating.
- Section 471:
It deals with using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.
Information Technology Act:
- Section 66D:
It deals with punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resources.
OVERVIEW:
- Alok Jha filed a bail application in Police Station – Pilkhuwa District – Hapur regarding Case Crime No. 381 of 2022.
- Sections of the Indian Penal Code such as 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 471, and Section 66D of the IT ACT were filed against the applicant.
- The applicant had been detained since July 22, 2022, and on February 27, 2023, the court denied his prior request for bail.
- The applicant sought relief against the impugned order in the present application.
ISSUE RAISED:
What were the primary concerns raised in the court proceedings regarding the investigation process and trial pace, leading to the grant of bail with conditions and directives to address non-cooperation from bank officials?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPLICANT:
- The petitioner was a law-abiding individual who took part in the trial and assisted with police investigations.
- The applicant did not influence any witnesses or tamper with any evidence.
- There were no delaying strategies used to obstruct the trial procedure.
- It was not the applicant’s activities that were causing the trial to move slowly and result in an indeterminate sentence of incarceration.
- The right to a prompt trial was infringed by the delay.
- The applicant’s criminal history and the fabricated cases brought against him were explained.
- The applicant agreed to assist with the trial process and did not pose a flight risk.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:
- They emphasised how grave the allegations against the petitioner were.
- They voiced worries that should the application be granted bail, they would tamper with the evidence or interfere with the inquiry.
- They argued that the seriousness of the alleged offences warranted continuing incarceration.
- Raised any particular procedural or legal concerns that were pertinent to the case.
- They emphasised the necessity of protecting the legal system’s and the investigation’s integrity.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The bail application was granted.
- Applicant Alok Jha was granted bail under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the IT Act in Case Crime No. 381 of 2022 at Police Station – Pilkhuwa District – Hapur.
- After proving to the satisfaction of the lower court that a personal bond and two sureties in the same amount were provided, bail was granted.
- Several requirements were placed on the defendant, such as showing up in person at the trial court on the designated days and refraining from influencing or interfering with the evidence throughout the trial.
- After giving the sureties careful thought, the trial court was instructed to fix them.
- The trial court was directed to make sure that the granted right of bail was not thwarted by capricious demands or burdensome requirements unrelated to his financial situation.
- The trial court may cancel the bail if the applicant or any accused person exhibited a lack of cooperation during the trial or utilised stalling tactics.
- The trial court was instructed to see to it that bank personnel who refused to cooperate with the inquiry were prosecuted as soon as possible.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, after taking into account a number of arguments put forth by the applicant’s attorney, the court granted bail to Alok Jha. The trial court was instructed to make sure that the applicant’s bail rights were maintained without making arbitrary demands, and the court stressed the significance of quick and fair trial proceedings. It also voiced worries regarding the calibre of the investigation. The trial court was also directed to expedite actions against non-compliant bank personnel.
