Dismissed

Ajit Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2021BAIL/46401/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Court No. 72, Allahabad, dismissed the bail application of Ajit Kumar, who owned a vehicle allegedly used to transport cattle. The court reasoned that despite his claim of no direct involvement, the nature of the offense, the owner's identity being central to the case, and the potential for witness intimidation made it inappropriate to grant bail. The court emphasized the need for h

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; applicant directed to remain in custody until the conclusion of the trial in the interest of justice.

Ajit Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46401 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,Ajay Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 88 of 2020, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, police station Kandwa, district Chandauli, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report. As per prosecution case, seven cows and one calf have been recovered from the vehicle bearing No. U.P. 67 AT 3765. Later on it was revealed that the applicant is owner of the said vehicle. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in fact the applicant is innocent. There is no dispute about the ownership of the alleged vehicle. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on 24.07.2020 the alleged vehicle was given on rent by the applicant to one Awadhesh, who was illegally transporting the aforesaid cattle behind the back of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also alleged that the applicant has no knowledge about transporting of the aforesaid cattle. The name of the applicant came into light on account of reason that he is the owner of the said vehicle. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant does not have any criminal history to his credit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that in case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar anti-social activities and will misuse the bail by extending threat and intimidation to the

¶10

prosecution witnesses.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Ajit Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶20

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Sazia

Ajit Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar 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

Akhil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Ayyub Vs State of U.P.

Nirdosh @ Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Parmanand Baba Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan @ Kale Vs State of U.P.