Allowed

Ajay @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2021BAIL/29132/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held a case for bail was made out given the doubtful recovery of a motorcycle unverified by its owner and lack of independent witnesses, despite the applicant's criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ajay @ Golu released on personal bond and two sureties under conditions against tampering with evidence and avoiding criminal activities.

Ajay @ Golu Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29132 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ajay @ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Jeet Singh,Hari Bans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 146 of 2021, under Section 411, 413, 414, 419, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Rasara, District- Ballia.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The recovery of one motor-cycle shown against the applicant in the recovery memo, is false and fabricated and is planted by the police and the owner of the motor-cycle has not identified the same, which indicates that the recovery is doubtful. There is no independent witness in the present case. Criminal history of applicant has been explained in para nos. 4 to 22 of the supplementary affidavit in support of bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.05.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is criminal history of twenty two cases of applicant.

¶9

Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of the accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that only one motor-cycle has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and that too has not been identified by its owner, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Ajay @ Golu involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.12.2021 VPS

Ajay @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay @ Golu 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

Ravish Vs State of U.P.

Wasim @ Galkata Vs State of U.P.

Parvej Rao @ Noor Aalam Vs State of U.P.

Raviraj Dhuriya Vs State of U.P.

Narendra @ Chhotu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Chauhan Vs State of U.P.