Allowed

Manoj Kannaujiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022BAIL/11614/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a cheating and forgery case, relying on the parity of bail granted to identically placed co-accused. The order included conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties subject to statutory and under-taking conditions.

Manoj Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11614 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Kannaujiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar 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. 12 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 411 IPC and 66 I.T. Act, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per FIR version on 7th October, 2021 from the possession of applicant and co-accused Manish Modanwal, Dharmendra Nishad, Vivek Kumar and Arun Kumar Gupta ATM cards were recovered. He further submits that except applicant all the aforesaid coaccused have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 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 applicant has criminal history of 3 cases in which he has been enlarged on bail explained in Paragraph- 17 of the affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 12.01.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that coaccused have already been released on bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, enlargement of identically placed co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Manoj Kannaujiya involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.7.2022 Israr

¶15

Digitally signed by ISRAR AHMAD Date: 2022.07.13 10:08:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kannaujiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kannaujiya 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

Munendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Haseen Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Parvej @ Changul @ Bhura Vs at Lucknstate of U.P. through Secretary Home

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P.