Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2018BAIL/24590/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the High Court granted relief to the applicant, Anil Kumar, noting his lack of prior criminal history. The court imposed specific conditions regarding court attendance, passport surrender, and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond of Rs. one lakh with two sureties; directed to expedite trial within one year.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24590 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pulak Ganguly Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Herd Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was a Clerk/Health Supervisor at Primary Health Centre, Araon, District Firozabad. It is further stated that the trap which has been laid down, is not in accordance with law and the same has been laid down just to harass the applicant. He has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 29.03.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. for the state has opposed the prayer for bail but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awardable to the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Anil Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 48 of 2018, Under Section 7, 13(1d) 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act-1988, Police Station-Eka, District-Firozabad, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. one lakh with two sureties of (out of which one should a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶12

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail 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.

¶14

(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 applicants are 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.

¶15

(v) It is made clear that if the aforesaid applicant is having passport, he shall surrender the same before the trial court concerned before his release and further he will not leave the country without the permission of this Court.

¶16

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 6.8.2018 JK Yadav

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjai @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madeena Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Arun Kumar Kukreja and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aash Mohmmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Salim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others