Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Saroj Kumar Upadhyay vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 July, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28431 of 2018 Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Piyush Sinha,Chandan Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyushy Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Mishra learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in S.S.T. No.25 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2001 under sections 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1) (c) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad, during the pendency of trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant retired from service in 2013 and he is presently aged about 70 years. The issue pertains to the year 1988 to 1991 and the FIR has been lodged in 2001 and sanction order for prosecution has been granted in 2010. The allegation made in the sanction order is false and fabricated. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, the applicant has no concern at all with the alleged contract work, hence the applicant is liable to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. He is in jail since 04.06.2018.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Saroj Kumar Upadhyay involved in Case Crime No. 179 of 2001 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and section 13(1) (c) (d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- (out of which one should be a family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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.
(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.
(v) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court concerned and shall furnish an undertaking not to leave the country until permission is obtained by him from this Court till the conclusion of the trial.
(vi) The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C within a further of of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2018 AU
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

Saroj Kumar Upadhyay vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2018
Judges
  • Ramesh Sinha
Advocates
  • Piyush Sinha Chandan Sharma