Allowed

Bhojraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2021BAIL/13698/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13698 of 2021, the High Court of Allahabad allowed bail for the applicant, Bhojraj, in a cheating and forgery case. The court granted bail without sureties pending the restoration of normal court functioning and imposed strict conditions to ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond without sureties subject to strict conditions on trial attendance, to be supplemented by sureties within a month of court restoration.

Bhojraj Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13698 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Bhojraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Misra,Swasti Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 800 of 2020, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC, at Police Station Kosi Kalan, District Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has neither any account in the Axis Bank nor he ever applied for any loan of the alleged amount. He further submits that applicant has no criminal history and the whole prosecution story is absurd and based on conjecture and surmises. He submits that co-accused Neeraj Kumar Singh and Anubhav Kumar have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 22.03.2021 and 26.03.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2928 of 2021 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4699 of 2021 respectively. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.01.2021 and the applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. However, any observation made hereinabove, will not affect the trial of the case.

¶10

Let the applicant Bhojraj , involved in the above mentioned case 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

¶11

imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶13

(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 IPC.

¶14

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the

¶19

witnesses.

¶20

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.5.2021 Vikram

Bhojraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhojraj 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

Sorib @ Bilal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Javed and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Aman Verma Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Singh Sikarwar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.