Allahabad High Court
Ankit Rai @ Prateek Rai vs State Of U.P. on 15 December, 2020
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 28 Case :- BAIL No. - 5720 of 2020 Applicant :- Ankit Rai @ Prateek Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shaunak Singh,Ravi Singh,Suhail Kashif,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in FIR No.72 of 2020 under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow.
3. Allegations in the FIR against the accused-applicant are that he was arrested with having fake currency of Rs.1,49,400/-. It is alleged that he purchased this currency for a sum of Rs.25,000/- from one Bunty resident of Sivan, Bihar and he was to deliver this amount for Rs.50,000/- to one Sandeep of Lucknow.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, the investigating officer of the case is present in the Court. He has produced a report of Currency Press, Nasik which has confirmed that the currency recovered from the accused-applicant was fake. The investigating officer has stated that Sandeep and Bunty are fake persons. S.T.F. and he himself have tried to find out their correct addresses and names etc., but it appears that they did not disclose their true identity to the accused-applicant. He further submits that the investigation is on to find out the correct persons who were involved in the commission of the offence. The accused-applicant has no previous criminal history but it appears that he has done similar offences in past which has been accepted by him but no recovery of his past transactions has been made so far.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
6. Let applicant Ankit Rai @ Prateek Rai be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to 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.
Order Date :- 15.12.2020 prateek