Manjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25703

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1944 of 2024

Applicant :- Manjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary afÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This is second bail application filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 11 of 2020, under Sections 304, 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 16.01.2020. The case of the applicant is similar to co-accused Sanjeet and Jyoti Prakash, who have been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6573 of 2023 and 1940 of 2024. The bail orders of co-accused Sanjeet and Jyoti Prakash are annexed as SA 2 & 3 to the supplementary afÏdavit. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but fairly concedes that similarly situated co-accused Sanjeet and Jyoti Prakash have already been granted bail.

¶11

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., ground of parity with the coaccused and going through the material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. Application stands allowed on the ground of parity.

¶12

Let applicant -Manjeet be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 11 of 2020 (supra), on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

(ii) 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 ofÏce or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

(iii) The applicant 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.

¶16

(iv) 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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶17

(v) 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. may be issued and if 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

¶18

IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) 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 sufÏcient 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.

¶20

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.3.2024 VKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Vijay Kumar vs Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Unit Head (Addl. General Manager) Iti Ltd., Raebareli

Usha Devi vs Shri Anand Prakash Rai, Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil-Milkipur, Ayodhya

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shakeel Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Manjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.