Allowed

Madan Mohan Shukla v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2019BAIL/44801/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application was dismissed as the High Court granted bail to the applicant, Madan Mohan Shukla, in a corruption and forgery case. The court noted a nine-year investigation delay and lack of prior criminal record, granting bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

Madan Mohan Shukla Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44801 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Madan Mohan Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Misra,Juned Alam,Sri Viresh Misra, Senior Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

This is the second bail application.

¶6

Heard Sri Viresh Misra learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondents.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.110 of 1997 under Section 420, 467, 468, 409, 120-B IPC and Section 7/13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act' 1988, Police Station- Kotwali, District Gonda..

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations in respect of which First Information Report was lodged are of the year 1994. The FIR was lodged in the year 1997. First Parcha of the case diary was prepared on 25.02.2004 and investigation took eight long years to complete. The charge sheet was submitted in the Court on 04.04.2006. The petitioner had surrendered in April 2018 and is languishing in jail since then.

¶9

The trial has not been proceeded with the required pace as two other witnesses are still absconding. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a public servant and he has no criminal history or antecedent. No specific role has been assigned to him in the alleged offence by the police in the charge sheet.

¶10

There is no chance of tempering of evidence or to erase the evidence on the part of the applicant. The co-accused who was lodged in jail on 06.03.2015 had been granted bail on 20.07.2015.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but could not place any cogent material before the Court to the contrary.

¶12

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the

¶13

opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let applicant Madan Mohan Shukla be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.11.2019 Himanshu

Madan Mohan Shukla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan Shukla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kajal Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kavita and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reetu @ Chinu Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ajeet Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Bright Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Garg Vs Sachiv Basic Shiksha Parishad U.P. Allahabad and Another