Allowed

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/19079/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court noted that co-accused were already on bail and there was no apprehension of absconding. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court appearance, non-escape, and passport deposit.

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19079 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Imran Ibrahim,Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 46 of 2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120B IPC, Police StationSigra, District- Varanasi

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits, against the FIR lodged on 13.4.2020 the applicant is in confinement since 27.8.2020; the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the applicant did not have any criminal history prior to the present occurrence, however subsequently similar allegations have emerged; chargesheet has already been submitted; There is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, relying on the fact that the applicant was appointed Director of the Corporation on 01.2.2019 whereas the disputed deposits were made between 2012-16. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant cannot be held liable for the past acts of the Corporation or of its agents and Directors prior to his appointment; other coaccused are also stated to have been enlarged on bail.

¶8

Further submission is that transaction as indicated in the FIR relates to year 2012-16 and during this period co-accused Amar Nath Maurya was Director. It is pointed out that co-accused Amar Nath Maurya has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.1.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.50722 of 2021.It is further pointed out that in similar accusation the present applicant has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3584 of 2021. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from

¶9

the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 27.8.2020.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant as also that the coaccused persons have already been released on bail.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶12

Let applicant-Rajeev Kumar Prajapati be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶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 misuse 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 fail 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 party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶18

(vi) The computer generated copy of such 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 official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

(vii) The applicant shall not leave the district without seeking permission from the Court concerned and shall mark his presence at the local police station every fortnight.

¶21

(viii) The applicant shall deposit his passport before the Court concerned.

¶22

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.5.2022

¶24

M. Tarik

¶25

Digitally signed by MOHD TARIK Date: 2022.05.27 17:33:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Prajapati 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

Abhishek Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh @ Pilua Vs State of U.P.

Anil Sain Vs State of U.P.

Shahid @ Pappy Vs State of U.P.

Baseem Vs State of U.P.