Allowed

Rajeev v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2020BAIL/46359/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46359 of 2020, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to Rajeev in case Crime No. 654 of 2019 involving theft and cheating. The applicant, already in jail, argued he was falsely implicated and requested parity with co-accused. The court, without examining merits, allowed bail on personal bond and two sureties with standard trial attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend trial and not seek adjournments without witnesses.

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46359 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeev Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Raja Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 0654 of 2019 at Police Station-Kant District- Shahjahanpur on 07.11.2019, under Sections 457, 380, 342 IPC.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Shahjahanpur on 24.08.2020.

¶9

The applicant is in jail since 20.1.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶10

Sri Raja Ullah Khan, learned counsel contends that the applicant was falsely implicated in the statement given by the co-accused to the police authorities. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The applicant claims parity with the case of other co-accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court on 8.7.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13092 of 2020.

¶11

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

¶12

The applicant has satisfactorily explained his criminal history.

¶13

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

¶14

allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Rajeev be released on bail in Case Crime No.654 of 2019 at Police Station-Kant District- Shahjahanpur under Sections 395, 412/34 IPC., registered on 07.11.2019 at Police Station-Kant District- Shahjahanpur, 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:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 18.12.2020 Nadeem Ahmad

Rajeev v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

Deependra Nithariya Vs State of U.P.

Jony Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subash Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Dhani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Abushad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Pasi Vs State of U.P.