Allowed

Dhananjay Maurya @ Dhananjay Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024ABAIL/7998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for the applicant. The refusal was based on the ground of parity with a co-accused whose bail was not disputed. Bail was granted subject to conditions including appearing for interrogation and not tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions including appearance for interrogation and no interference with evidence or witnesses

Dhananjay Maurya @ Dhananjay Kumar Maurya vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152969

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7998 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dhananjay Maurya @ Dhananjay Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mansoor Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.36 of 2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and 6/10 of Uttar Pradesh Public Examination Act, 1998, at Police StationKotwali, District- Gorakhpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused person Sandeep Yadav has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3680 of 2024. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶9

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the

¶11

judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, 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 anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶12

In view of the above, let the accused-applicant- Dhananjay Maurya @ Dhananjay Kumar Maurya be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii). that 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;

¶15

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Vikas

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

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

Dhananjay Maurya @ Dhananjay Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Maurya @ Dhananjay Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ayyub vs State of Up

Vimal Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P.

Ramashish Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avinash vs State of Up and Another

Vikas Kumar Singh vs State of Up

Pushpendra Singh vs State of Up