Bail application filed by Amar Chand accused under Sections 3/7 of E.C. Act, alleging false implication. Court granted bail without prejudging merits, relying on Article 21 and judicial precedent.
Granted bail in Crime No. 294 of 2011 with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 62
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39472 of 2018
Applicant :- Amar Chand Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Gaurav Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant is neither the owner nor the tenant of the go-down and the rent note is absolutely false and forged. The said fact has been mentioned in para 11 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. The applicant has not been arrested on the spot nor has anything being recovered from his possession. There is no independent witness of either of the recovery or the involvement in the alleged crime. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 22.09.2018 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Amar Chand be released on bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2011, under Sections 3/7 E.C. Act, Police StationChata, District- Mathura on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (One should be of a family member) each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Arti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant for bail should be released on personal bond with sureties given the lack of independent recovery and no criminal history.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherExplained¶9
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Amar Chand
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vivek Kumar Singh
Parties & counsel
