Allowed

Mauliram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Jun 2023/7089/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon hearing a bail application filed by applicants accused in a Range Case under the Wild Life Protection Act and Indian Forest Act, the Court granted bail, addressing concerns regarding false implication and lack of summons received.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 1 lakhs and two local sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Mauliram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:40018

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7089 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mauliram And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Range Case No.02 of 2013-14, under Sections 9, 27, 31, 35(6), 51(1), 1C of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, Range-Bankati, District-Kheri, with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in the case and they are in jail since 08.02.2023. He further submitted that alleged offence is of the year 2013 and complaint case was filed by the Forest officials. He further submitted that summon in the present case was not served on the applicants, and thereafter, warrant was issued and when it came into their knowledge, then they appeared before the court below and submitted bail applications. He further submitted that criminal history of the applicants were placed before the court below those are mentioned in para-19 and 20 of the bail application. He further submitted that applicants have not received any summon regarding the cases mentioned in para-19 & 20 of the bail application. He further submitted that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate and punishable upto seven years. He further submitted that applicants are ready to cooperate in the proceeding of trial. He further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicants. In these circumstances, the applicants are entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that in Criminal Case No.1972 of 2018, under Sections 2, 9, 27, 30, 31, 32, 35(6), 51(1) of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, the

¶11

applicants have approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2899 of 2023, in which this Hon'ble Court has granted bail to them on the same criminal history of the applicants by its order dated 27.02.2023, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure No. 8 to the present bail application.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants, but he does not dispute the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and punishable upto seven years.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of complaint as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let the applicants, namely, Mauliram and Badana , who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1 lakhs and two local sureties of Rs.50,000/- subject to following conditions.

¶15

(i) The applicants shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

(ii) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(v) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the

¶21

Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 them in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 1.6.2023 Gurpreet Singh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mauliram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mauliram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Subhadra Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Hanuman Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 5 Others

Shiv Nandan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Maneesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another