Allowed

Amit Awasthi @ Omi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2020BAIL/9714/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Siddharth, J. allowed the criminal bail application of Amit Awasthi involving charges under Section 272 IPC and Section 60 of the Excise Act, noting the false recovery allegation and lack of prior conviction. Bail granted subject to personal bond and conditions, effective after short-term bail period.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions, effective after the short-term bail period ends.

Amit Awasthi @ Omi Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9714 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Awasthi @ Omi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Kumar Singh and Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsels for the applicant for the State.

¶6

The implication of the applicant under section 272 I.P.C is unjustified. A special Act is holding the field. Offence under section 60 of Excise Act is bailable and triable by Magistrate. False recovery has been alleged. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.03.2019, who is not a previous convict.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted herein above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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.

¶8

Let the applicant, Amit Awasthi @ Omi , involved in Case Crime No. 231 of 2019, under Sections- 272 IPC and 60 Excise Act, Police Station- Ghatampur, District- Kanpur Nagar, 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.

¶9

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶10

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶11

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶12

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of

¶13

Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶14

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.9.2020 Rohit

Amit Awasthi @ Omi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Awasthi @ Omi 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

Mukim Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad @ Musad Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Verma Vs State of U.P.

Asamuddin Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Sharma @ Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Sharma @ Sandeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.