SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manoj Paswan vs State Of U.P. on 22 April, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?In Chamber

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 8345 of 2020

Applicant :- Manoj Paswan

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sudip Ojha

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State today. Taken on record.

2. The prayer made by the applicant – Manoj Paswan is to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2006, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station – Banshdeeh, District – Balia, during pendency of trial.

3. From perusal of the bail application and the affidavit filed in support thereof as also the counter affidavit, it appears, at present:

(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Section 406 IPC;

(ii) against FIR lodged on 19.1.2006, the applicant is in confinement since 15.10.2019;

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

(iv) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been stated in the affidavit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the ingredients of the offence are not made out against the applicant, who are alleged to have been paid Rs. 1,500/- for the construction of the toilet, which allegation is itself unbelievable. Insofar as the main accused are concerned, it has been indicated that the applicant has no concern with them and thus the case of the applicant stands on a completely different footing. Those accused are alleged to have misappropriated large amounts of public money.

(v) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witnesses.

4. This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

5. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant – Manoj Paswan involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 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 party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

(vii) 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.

6. In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

“Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release.”

Order Date :- 22.4.2020

Prakhar

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation