Allowed

Ajai @ Pakodi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2020BAIL/11230/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This chamber bail application in a theft case was heard via video-conferencing ground on prima facie evidence. Considering hindrances in finding sureties due to the lockdown and lack of danger to witnesses, the accused was released on personal bond with sureties to be produced later.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and a commitment to produce two sureties within one month.

Ajai @ Pakodi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11230 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajai @ Pakodi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Malviya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

The matter has been placed today in the fresh list, in Chambers.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Malviya, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA alongwith brief holder, through video-conferencing.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Ajai @ Pakodi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No-0005 of 2020, under Sections-395, 397, 412 I.P.C., Police StationMakkanpur, District-Firozabad , during pendency of trial.

¶8

From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:

¶9

(i) the applicant is accused of offences under Sections395, 397, 412 I.P.C.;

¶10

(ii) against FIR lodged on 19.01.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 03.02.2020;

¶11

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case, he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶12

(iv) as to criminal history, it has been submitted that it comprises of some petty offences and has been explained by means of the supplementary affidavit;

¶13

(v) though investigation is stated to be pending however, at present, no justifiable cause has been shown to continue the detention of the applicant for an indefinite period;

¶14

(vi) learned AGA has objected to the bail being granted in view of the criminal history of the applicant;

¶15

(vii) having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, purely on prima facie basis,

¶16

without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, it is seen that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the recovery claimed from the applicant is of Rs.450/- only whereas the allegation was of loot of Rs.10,000/- and two mobile phones which were not recovered from the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than four months;

¶17

(viii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.

¶18

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶19

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Ajai @ Pakodi involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶25

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶26

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶28

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶29

Order Date :- 5.6.2020 Shubham

Ajai @ Pakodi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajai @ Pakodi 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

Lalita Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt Meeta Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Anand @ Anand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Julfkkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi @ Ashutosh Vs State of U.P.