Allowed

Udal Maurya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022BAIL/38583/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC, the High Court allowed release on bail for an accused falsely implicated in an ancestral property dispute, citing lack of evidence and jail overcrowding during the pandemic. Conditions were imposed to prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each. Conditions imposed against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and making inducements.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38583 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Udal Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant arising out of Case Crime No. 19 of 2021 at Police Station- Chandauli, District Chandauli under Section 302 IPC.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Chandauli on 25.08.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 10.10.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The deceased was the grandfather of the applicant. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the applicant. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The applicant was named in the statement of his sister-in-law solely on the foot of suspicion. Suspicion howsoever grave, is no substitute for evidence. The applicant has been implicated only to

¶10

deny him his share in the ancestral property and benefit from his absence. The criminal case is being leveraged in the claim made by the sister-in-law to the ancestral property of the deceased. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. Further, no incriminating link in the chain of circumstances is disclosed against the applicant. The recovered items were planted on the applicant to show proficiency of the police investigators. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The recovery memo is unreliable. The recovered item cannot be connected with the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that apart from this case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶12

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).

¶13

These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant- Udal Maurya be released on bail in Case Crime No. 19 of 2021 at Police StationChandauli, District Chandauli under Section 302 IPC on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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

¶21

or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 Dhananjai

¶24

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.02.11 15:24:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Udal Maurya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udal Maurya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjiv Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dilwari Vs State of U.P.

Rai Sahab Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Kaladeen Vs State of U.P.

Shafik Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Gupta @ Bhonu Vs State of U.P.