Allowed

Amar Nath Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021CRLA/2089/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed this criminal appeal, setting aside an order that rejected the appellant's bail. Noting the FIR and charge sheet do not establish the appellant's specific role in the company affair, the court quashed the lower court's order and directed the accused's release on bail with personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.02.2021 rejecting bail set aside; accused released on personal bond and two sureties.

Amar Nath Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2089 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Amar Nath Maurya Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 17.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Varanasi in Case Crime No.- 109 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Lalpur/Pandeypur, District- Varanasi.

¶7

The FIR allegations are that the Company working in the name and style of Awesome Infra Project Limited induced the informant to deposit the money which would be doubled and in terms of the said inducing Fixed Deposit the sum of Rs. 5000/-, however, subsequently, no money was paid as promised and, thus, an offence was said to have been committed. The counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was an employee with a Company and there is no averment either in the FIR or in the charge-sheet to the effect that the appellant had any role to play in day to today affairs of the Company. He further argues that one of the co-accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8615 of 2021 which is on record as Annexure-6. As regards the criminal antecedents, the appellant informs that with regard to similar incidents various FIRs were lodged and the appellant has been roped in merely because he was an employee of the Company. He also argues that in one of the said case the appellant has been enlarged on bail which order is on record. The appellant is in custody since 24.09.2020.

¶8

I have considered the material on record including the FIR and the charge sheet which does not indicate the role of the appellant in the Company or with regard to affairs of the Company.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶11

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/ State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶12

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and

¶13

circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶15

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Amar Nath Maurya involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶16

The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official is further directed to 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.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.9.2021 Raj

¶18

Digitally signed by Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra Date: 2021.09.08 17:39:49 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amar Nath Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Nath Maurya v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harvir Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nafis Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vinta @ Vintu Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rajendra yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Waseem Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P.