Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023BAIL/44043/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Allahabad grant bail to applicant Ajay Kumar charged under CGST Act and U.P. Gangsters Act. Court considered severity of charges, prior bail in other cases, and settled law allowing bail in fit cases despite serious accusations without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties with conditions against tampering, intimidation, and ensuring presence in court.

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215181

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44043 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nafees Ahmad,Jai Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- Parv Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit as well as counter affidavit filed today, which are taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record of the case.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Ajay Kumar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1092 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Department DGGI, Meerut, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Meerut vide order dated 18.09.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justified his arrest as provided in the Code. It is further submitted that offences as alleged are punishable up-to 5 years imprisonment. It is further submitted that no notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant and he is illegally arrested. It is further submitted that till date penalty or taxes has not been ascertained as per Act. It is further submitted that the offences are compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.07.2023. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant has no other previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for Union of India has supported the order passed by the Session court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India decided by Chhatisgarh High Court in MCRC No. 3919 of 2022 on 15.07.2022, by which Special Leave petition against the order of Chattishgarh High Court was rejected by the Supreme Court on 12.12.2022. 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.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶13

(a) The applicant has been implicated in the instant case on the basis of four criminal cases, which was lodged on same police station;

¶14

(b) The police has been implicated the appellant in Gangsters Act twice;

¶15

¶16

(d) Co-accused, Shamim having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.10.2022;

¶17

It is settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶18

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of

¶19

Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598 , Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, and provision of Section 19(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let applicant, Ajay Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶21

(i) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

(iv) 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 trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶26

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶27

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

¶28

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order

¶29

downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶30

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶31

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Mini

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Kumar v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. Union of India and Another

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

Bhanu Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Imran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Raj Raghuvanshi @ Subham Baliyan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Israiel Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akshay Goyal Vs Union of India and Another