Allowed

Munna and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 May 2022BAIL/18944/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, bench with Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J. and Ashish Tripathi, J. allowed the criminal miscellaneous bail application filed by Munna and others under Sections 60(1) and 60(2) of the Excise Act, holding that the applicants are entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Munna and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18944 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munna And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Yadav,Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicants have prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.55 of 2022 at Police Station-Farenda, DistrictMahrajganj under Sections 60(1) and 60(2) of the Excise Act. The applicants are in jail since 31.03.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicants was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Court No.1, Maharajganj on 16.04.2022.

¶7

Shri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. Liquor was planted on the applicants to implicate them in this case to burnish the credentials of the police authorities. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicants with the offence. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicant No.2 does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicants

¶8

have explained the criminal history of the applicants No.1 and 3 and contends that the same have no bearing on the instant case.

¶9

Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, learned AGA points out that the applicant No.1 has a criminal history of one case under Section 60(1) of the Excise Act and the applicant No.3 has a criminal history of two cases under the Excise Act.

¶10

Rejoining the issue, Shri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants No.1 and 3 do not have any pairokar who can produce all reliable details of the cases pending against them. However, relying on the records of the learned A.G.A., and instructions from the applicants, learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants being from economically weaker section of the society have become a soft target for the police authorities. The police authorities falsely framed them in the aforesaid cases to burnish their credentials. The said criminal cases do not depict commission of any heinous crime and have no bearing on the instant case. The applicant is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses,

¶11

tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶12

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

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicants-Munna, Laksmina, Kushwanti 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 subject to following conditions.

¶15

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicants will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

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

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the

¶19

prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.23 09:51:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munna and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna and 2 Others 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

Prem Kumar Rathor Vs State of U.P.

Satish Jogi Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Alias Zaid Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.