Allowed

Umesh Maurya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023BAIL/13492/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UP High Court, Allahabad allowed a bail application filed by Umesh Maurya in a criminal case alleging offences under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376. The court held that the applicant made out a case for bail despite prosecution challenges regarding FIR delay and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and non-contravention of law.

Umesh Maurya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13492 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neelabh Srivastava,Vijay Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Tripathi,Kunwar Tejandra Bahadur

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State, Sri Tejendra Bahadur learned counsel for the first informant and perused the record.

¶6

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 24.11.2020 whereas, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 05.03.2021 without there being any plausible explanation of such an inordinate delay. He further submits that the medical report does not corroborate with the prosecution version and therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 15.02.2023 having no criminal history. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the

¶7

informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. Learned counsel for the informant further submits that when F.I.R. could not be lodged, then the informant moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. pursuant to which F.I.R. has been lodged and therefore there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let applicant Umesh Maurya involved in Case Crime No.38 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Baharia, District Allahabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

I. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 26.4.2023

¶17

S.Ali

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Umesh Maurya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Alias Imran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Sundar Alias Shyam Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aditya Kamal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others