Allowed

Ejaj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/5135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad HC, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to the applicant in an under-trial theft case, allowing release on personal bond with sureties, subject to specific attendance and conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties each, subject to four specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct at trial.

Ejaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38964

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5135 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ejaj Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.The Prin.Secy.Home Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the learned Government Advocate, the same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.1270 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki during trial.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶10

As per the avertments made in the FIR it is alleged that the complainant had gone to visit his ailing relative in hospital on 27.11.2023 and he had parked motorcycle bearing no.UP41V1573 outside the hospital, however, when he returned his motorcycle was missing. It is submitted that the alleged recovery is said to have been made on 18.02.2024 and in the said arresting 16 other motorcycles have been shown which have been recovered at the pointing out of applicant and coaccused.

¶11

It is further submitted that prior to this incident the applicant did not have any criminal history and now a number of cases have been slapped on the applicant and the applicant has been in jail since 07.12.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-

¶13

accused namely Irshad Ali has already been granted bail by this Court by means of the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4793 of 2024.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of the counter affidavit, has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Ejaj Ahmad involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ejaj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ejaj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Swati Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Ansal Housing and Construction, New Delhi Thru. Director Shri. Maharaj Kisan Trishal vs Electricity Ombudsman, Lucknow Thru. Lokpal and Others

Usman @ Pasha and Another vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Ejaj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy.Home

Anshuman Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home and Another