Allowed

Manjeet Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021BAIL/4764/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Bail Application allowed for theft case under Sections 379, 411 IPC. Court granted bail on personal bond and sureties subject to standard conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and prohibition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, cooperate with trial, and appear in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4764 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manjeet Kumar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.753 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the F.I.R. version on 08.12.2020 a bag containing amount of Godan was stolen by unknown person. He further submits that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. As per general diary details, it revealed that Rs.30,00,000/- were stolen. He further submits that as per the F.I.R. the theft was committed in Mathura and after two days' he returned Mathura as well as Rs.25,00,000/were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused. He further submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged theft. He further also submits that there was dispute of disciple that's why he has been implicated in the present case and there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 11.12.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Manjeet Kumar Upadhyay involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to

¶10

the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

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

¶17

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Zafar

Manjeet Kumar Upadhyay v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Kumar Upadhyay 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Singh Vs State of U.P.

Fida Husain Vs State of U.P.

Gayapal Alias Gayaprasad Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh @ Rajesh Kurmi @ Dabang @ Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.