Allowed

Manoj @ Ravi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2022BAIL/5440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the accused Manoj @ Ravi in a case involving manufacture and sale of illicit liquor affecting health. The applicant was added as an accused based on co-accused statements but had no prior FIR mention. The relief was granted subject to strict conditions to ensure trial presence.

What did the court decide?

Order for release on bail with two sureties and specific conditions regarding court presence and prohibition on adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5440 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj @ Ravi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh,Ravi Yadav,Sr. Advocate

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prem Narayan learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This is an application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant, Manoj @ Ravi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 165 of 2021, under Sections 272, 273, 304, 120-B, 420, 467, 471 of the I.P.C. and Section 60(A) of the Excise Act, Police Station- Lodha, District- Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. Further, it has been submitted that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and his name surfaced only when one Pawan, another co-accused, has mentioned his name and stated that the applicant was responsible for the bringing of wrappers and dhakkans (lids) of the bottles. It is argued that excepting the statement of the co-accused Pawan there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the manufacturing of the illicit liquor. It has been further alleged that the applicant was not responsible for actual selling of the liquor to the deceased persons and to the persons who were ill. Still further, learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the

¶9

applicant by means of supplementary affidavit in which he had stated that in both the cases the applicant has been bailed out and the criminal trial was going on.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Gangaram Pradhan in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53431 of 2021 on 23.3.2022, Vijendra Kapoor in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3047 of 2022 on 9.2.2022, Pramod Gupta in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51740 of 2021 on 28.3.2022, Sumit Sharma in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 56308 of 2021 on 24.3.2022, Pawan @ Pintu Jadaun in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2460 of 2022 on 8.3.2022, Dileep @ Chhotu in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4930 of 2022 on 25.3.2022, Arjun Singh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3286 of 2022 on 30.3.2022, Shiv Kumar Yadav in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 453 of 2022 on 25.4.2022, Udayraj @ Udayram in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1312 of 2022 on 20.4.2022, have already been released on bail by this Court. Therefore, if the applicant is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the aforesaid facts.

¶12

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Manoj @ Ravi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal

¶14

bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(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 the court.

¶16

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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against his under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶18

(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. be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed on such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Panel Code.

¶19

(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 charges and (iii) recording of statement under Section 323 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the

¶20

applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as an abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.5.2022 PK

¶22

(Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.05.19 11:24:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj @ Ravi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Ravi 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

Shaukat Ali Vs State of U.P.

Smt Gena Devi Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Guddi Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sukhveer Singh Vs State of U.P.