Allowed

Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2021BAIL/39720/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to applicant Monu in a case involving illicit liquor under IPC and Excise Act. High Court held applicant entitled to bail despite false implication allegations, considering lack of criminal record and pandemic jail overcrowding, subject to bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to standard conditions.

Monu Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39720 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Marjeet Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Marjeet Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.431 of 2021 at Police Station-Kairana, DistrictShamli under Sections 272, 273 I.P.C. and Section 60 of Excise Act.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kairana, Shamli, on 24.08.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 17.08.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Marjeet Mishra, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the prosecution case, 20 litre raw liquor and 08 litre rectified liquor have been recovered from the joint possession of two co-accused persons including the applicant. Illicit liquor was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. There is no independent witness or

¶10

public witness to the alleged recovery. Apart from this case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role with co-accused person and seeks parity in relief with co-accused namely Ravi, who has been granted bail by this Court on 22.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40782 of 2021 (Ravi Vs. State of U.P.). Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without

¶15

making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Monu involved in Case Crime No.431 of 2021 at Police Station-Kairana, District-Shamli under Sections 272, 273 I.P.C. and Section 60 of Excise Act be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.11.2021

¶23

Dhananjai

Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu 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

Kunwar Lal Vs State of Up

Unish Malik @ Daffer Malik Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Govind Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Vs State of U.P.