Allowed

Ritanshu Maurya v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024/6780/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court enlarged the applicant on bail in a cheating and forgery case. Despite opposition by the A.G.A., bail was granted due to co-accused being on bail, the case being triable by a Magistrate, the applicant languishing in jail since mid-April, and the conclusion that it is a fit case without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. Standard conditions of bail were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail subject to a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount along with specific undertaking conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attend

Ritanshu Maurya Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:62757

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6780 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ritanshu Maurya Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.50 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3/9 U.P. Examination Act, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

¶9

In the prosecution case it is alleged that applicant after taking money from the accused Kishan Kumar Singh has provided him admission in the Rajarshi Dasrath Autonomous State Medical College, Ayodhya.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 26.04.2024. The co-accused Sachin Rajvanshi as well as Ajay Pratap Singh have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 01.08.2024 & 08.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.7098 of 2024 and 8539 of 2024 respectively. The offences are triable by magistrate. The charge-sheet in the case has been filed. The applicant has explained the criminal history in para 17 of the bail application. Except the confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no material against the applicant.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.04.2024, offences are triable by magistrate; conclusion of the trial will take some time; the co-accused Sachin Rajvanshi as well as Ajay Pratap Singh have been enlarged on bail as also the fact that applicant seeks parity, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Ritanshu Maurya be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(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 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

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

¶20

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.9.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ritanshu Maurya v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritanshu Maurya v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Imran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lucknow and Annother

Sunil Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Ramu Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Amit Khandel Wal Vs Cbi/Scb Lucknow

Kuldeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another