Prashant Mauhire v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51293 of 2023 Applicant :- Prashant Mauhire Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Vikram Yadav,Jetendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Singh,Ramendra Pal Singh Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, counsel for the informant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.785 of 2023 under Sections 394, 120B and 411 of I.P.C., Police Station-North, District-Firozabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused, Vaibhav Garg and Abhishekh Garg in Police custody. The said statements, insofar as, it implicate the applicant are unreliable. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs. 4,000/- has been shown from the applicant. The said amount belongs to him. The applicant is in jail since 28.09.2023, having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused, Vaibhav Garg and Abhishekh Garg in Police custody. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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 witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Prashant Mauhire, involved in aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad