Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/5144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant Ejaj Ahmad in a criminal case under various IPC sections. Bail was allowed on personal bond with sureties, subject to conditions ensuring presence in court and prohibition on adjournments to secure evidence.

What did the court decide?

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

Ejaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38970

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5144 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ejaj Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. 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 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

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.140 of 2024 under Sections 411, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C relating to P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is alleged that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the police personnel had received a tip that there are two persons who are involved in the selling of motorcycles and automobiles and in case if they are apprehended, it can give information regarding many other.

¶10

It is further alleged that in furtherance thereof the police personnel during duty acted on the tip and stopped a motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 JX 4692. The two persons riding the said motorcycle were identified as the applicant and the other coaccused. It is further urged that in the aforesaid recovery, the applicant was found with Rs. 400/- along with the motorcycle and it also indicated that the license plates on the said motorcycle was fake and the number related to a Hyundai Car.

¶11

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no public witness nor the alleged vehicles said to have been recovered from the applicant has any basis. The applicant has been falsely implicated and in the said incident, the applicant has been slapped with another case. It has further been pointed

¶12

out that the co-accused namely Irshad Ali has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 07 May, 2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4908 of 2024.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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