Allowed

Baij Nath Maurya v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2022BAIL/280/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. It held that the applicant satisfactorily explained his criminal history, co-accused were on bail, and jail overcrowding due to the pandemic warranted release.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Baij Nath Maurya Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 280 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Baij Nath Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Home Up At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Gupta,Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, and S. K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0619 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 307, 342, 427, 336, 436, 325 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act & 3/4 the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 registered at Police Station- Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 18.09.2021.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case in question as he has not named in the FIR but during the course of investigation his name was surfaced. He further argued that he has not committed the said offence and no incriminating article has been recovered from him. He further argued that while relying upon paragraph no. 15 so as to contend that the applicant have criminal history of one case being case crime no. 0307 of 2015 wherein he in jail. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the court towards annexure-2 of the bail application so as to contend that the coaccused have been granted bail orders whereof have been appended from page no. 24 to 30, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He lastly submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2016.

¶9

Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed offence but he could not dispute the fact the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and further that the co-accused have been granted bail.

¶10

Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and co-accused have been bailed out and looking into the nature of the acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶11

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant Baij Nath Maurya involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶14

(i). The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

(ii). The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

(iii). The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(vi). Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.2.2022 Nisha

¶22

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.02.26 16:53:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baij Nath Maurya v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baij Nath Maurya v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

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

Suresh Singh Rana Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Madheshiya Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mujahid @ Soni Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Singh Chahar Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P.