Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Arvind Rajput vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|16 August, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28071 of 2021 Applicant :- Arvind Rajput Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Vaishya
Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.37 of 2021, under Sections 60 (A) Excise Act, Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 272/34 I.P.C. and Section 63-A Copy Right Act, P.S. Ata, District Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per FIR version 31 quarter liquor pouch alleged to have been recovered from the possession of Geeta and Ram Het. He further submits that the name of applicant has surfaced in the statement of Ram Het and Smt. Geeta. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is alleged that the co-accused Ashwani Rajpoot supplied the liquor has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.06.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17734 of 2021, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. It is also submitted that a Case Crime No.799 of 2016 allegedly registered against the applicant but as per inquiry no any such case is registered nor at any time applicant was arrested in the case. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next submitted that the applicant is is languishing in jail since 02.04.2021.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, enlargement of co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Arvind Rajpoot involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.
(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.
(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.
(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 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground of cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Jitendra Digitally signed by Justice Ali Zamin Date: 2021.08.19 13:30:08 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Arvind Rajput vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
16 August, 2021
Judges
  • Ali Zamin
Advocates
  • Raj Kumar Vaishya