Allowed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2020BAIL/42409/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court allowed the bail plea of Ranjeet accused under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC. The court noted lack of independent witnesses for vehicle recovery and released him on bond with sureties, imposing strict attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Case Crime No.0287 of 2020; furnished personal bond and two sureties; strict conditions of presence and no adjournments imposed.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42409 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indradeo,Ganesh Mani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Indradeo, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.0287 of 2020 at Police Station- Mugalsarari, District Chandauli on 8.08.2020, under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Adhiniyam Chandauli) on 19.09.2020.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 8.8.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Sri Indradeo, learned counsel contends that the applicant is neither owner nor driver of the seized vehicle. There is no independent witness of the recovery.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Ranjeet be released on bail in Case Crime No.0287 of 2020 at Police Station- Mugalsarari, District Chandauli on 8.08.2020, under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC. , on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

It is clarified that this order shall not apply to the NDPS case registered against the applicant. The applicant shall not be granted benefit of this order in the NDPS case registered against him which shall be decied by the competent court on merits.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.12.2020 Nadeem Ahmad

Ranjeet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet 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

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramjas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Javed and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

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