Allowed

Mayank Saxena v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023BAIL/3916/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court granted bail to Mayank Saxena in a cheating and forgery case. Despite false implication claims, the court noted parity with a co-accused and granted bail subject to strict personal bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond with two sureties in like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Mayank Saxena Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3916 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mayank Saxena Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurabh Srivastava,Sharad Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that the co-accused Deepak Bansal has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18525 of 2022, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has 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. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.11.2022. It has been pointed out that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶8

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses, enlargement of co-accused on bail and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Let the applicant Mayank Saxena involved in Case Crime No.0245 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 506

¶10

I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶11

(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 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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. 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.

¶14

(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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.4.2023 Jitendra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mayank Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Saxena 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

Rahisu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu @ Mohd. Ali Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P.

Nijamuddin Vs State of U.P.

Ajmat Vs State of U.P.