Allowed

Saurabh Saxena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2019BAIL/35676/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for applicant Saurabh Saxena accused under food safety and IPC sections. Court held offence bailable, evidence regarding complicity lacking, and applicant not a previous convict. Bail granted on bond and conditions barring tampering or intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions to prevent tampering and attend trial.

Saurabh Saxena Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35676 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Saurabh Saxena Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Shanker Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has been enacted by the legislature and hence the implication of the applicant under section 272, 420, 467, 468, I.P.C. is unjustified. Offence under section 60 (2) of Excise Act is bailable and trible by Magistrate. False recovery has been alleged. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.6.2019, who is not a previous convict.

¶6

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and 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 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.

¶7

Let the applicant, Saurabh Saxena involved in Case Crime No. 524 of 2019, under Sections 272, 420, 467, 468, IPC and Section 60 (2) Excise Act, Police Station Majhola, DistrictMoradabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two 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.

¶8

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶9

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶10

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶11

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶12

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court

¶14

Order Date :- 4.9.2019 Atul kr. sri.

Saurabh Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Vs State of U.P.

Smt Sheetal Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Harender Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanu Vs State of U.P.