Allahabad High Court
Ajay Kumar Maurya vs State Of U.P. on 18 May, 2021
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- BAIL No. - 4814 of 2021
Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Maurya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jai Prakash Singh,Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate through video conferencing in terms of orders issued by Hon'ble Chief Justice taking into consideration COVID-19 situation.
Present bail application has been filed by the accused/applicant in Case Crime No.64 of 2021, under Sections 379 and 411 IPC, Police Station Bikapur, District Ayodhya dated 10.02.2021. As per the version of the first information report, it comes out that the complainant had complained about the theft of his two horsepower irrigation pump.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was arrested on 03.03.2021 though he is innocent and the pump has also not been recovered from his possession and since then he is confined in jail.
On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the bail application by contending that the applicant has previous criminal history.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what is prima facie apparent is that the first information report was lodged against unknown persons. When the applicant was arrested on 03.03.2021, the motor was also not recovered from his possession. Even otherwise, the applicant is in jail since 03.03.2021. Considering the aforesaid and the fact of the present COVID-19 situation prevailing in the State, the Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Ajay Kumar Maurya, involved in the aforesaid crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(v) 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 CrPC (iv) argument / judgment.
(vi) 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.
(vii) Since the certified copy of this order, in view of the COVID-2019 pandemic, may not be easily available to the applicant, the applicant may file computer generated copy of this order from the official website of this Court and self- attested by the learned counsel for the applicant, before the concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/Official.
(viii) The concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/ Official, before accepting such computerized copy, filed by the applicant, as genuine, shall verify its authenticity from the official website of this Court.
(ix) Office is also directed to send a computerized copy of this order to the District Judge concerned through e-mail or the fax, as the case may be, forthwith.
It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 18.5.2021
A. Katiyar
