Allowed

Amar Pal Maurya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024/5661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC, the High Court disqualified the applicant based on Article 21 and the presumption of innocence, refusing bail due to serious allegations against him.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties each in an amount satisfactory to the trial court with conditions against tampering and mandatory attendance.

Amar Pal Maurya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54414

¶2

Court No. - 31

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5661 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amar Pal Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Raj Deep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0037 of 2022, under Sections 489-B and 489-C IPC, Police Station- Jethwara, DistrictPratapgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶9

On 29.1.2022, the applicant along with co-accused person Vakil Ahmad was apprehended by the police and an amount of Rs.10,300/- was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶10

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶11

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case out of Zila Parishad Elections rivalry.

¶12

The co-accused person Vakil Ahmad has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3367 of 2022.

¶13

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶14

The criminal history of the applicant stands explained except the case registered under the Electricity Act. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.1.2022 and is ready to cooperate with

¶15

trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY

¶17

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶18

CONCLUSION:

¶19

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

¶20

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶21

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant- Amar Pal Maurya involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on

¶24

furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶25

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶28

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶29

Order Date :- 7.8.2024 Vikas/-

¶30

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amar Pal Maurya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Pal Maurya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Up and Another

Smt Reena vs State of Up and Another

Rajbahadur vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Agarawal Vs Union of India Thru. Sontosh Tiwari Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Lko

Aquib Nasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ashish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others