Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1802 (ALL)

Ajay Gupta @ Ranu v. State of U. P.

2015-07-08

HARSH KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the applicant is not named in F.I.R. lodged against one unknown person; that the recovery of jewellery and other looted articles from the applicant after a period of 13 days of the alleged incident has been falsely planted on him; that no proper identification of recovered articles was ever conducted; that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery; that co-accused Ashwani @ Chhotu from whom also some looted articles were allegedly recovered has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.6.2015 passed in Bail No.5533 of 2015, copy of which has been produced for perusal; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and at the time of arrest, he was falsely implicated in case crime no.673 of 2014 and 312 of 2014; that in Case Crime no.673 of 2014, the applicant has been granted bail by Sessions Court vide order dated 29.1.2015, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit and in Case Crime No.312 of 2014, the applicant has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.5.2015 passed in Bail No.2503 of 2015, copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 2.5.2014. 3. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 4. 3. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 4. Let the applicant Ajay Gupta @ Ranu be released on bail in Case Crime No.651 of 2014, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Shahr, District Hardoi on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions: - (i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.