Allowed

Kuldeep Pathak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2018BAIL/4298/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Kuldeep Pathak in a criminal matter. Despite not being named in the FIR initially and opposing counsel arguing his involvement, the court exercised discretion relying on parity with co-accused who were released and Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Kuldeep Pathak Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4298 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhanu Prakash Verma,Manish Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Tiwari,S.P. Rai,Santoshprad Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State.

¶7

It is submitted that the applicant is not involved in this matter. Neither he was named in the first information report nor was arrested on the spot. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. It is further argued that there is no direct evidence to connect the applicant with the present offence. It is next contended that the co-accused Manoj Goyal, Ram Hari, Tervinder Jeet Singh, Sujeet Pradhan and Devendra Alias Vinod Gurjar have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 4.5.2018, 19.9.2018 and 27.9.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.22504 of 2017, 35632 of 2018 and 36982 of 2018, a copy of said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is taken on record and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 22.2.2017.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant - I.O.C. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that although applicant is not named in the F.I.R., yet he was actively involved in commission of the offence and his name came to light during investigation. There are sufficient evidence on record to connect the applicant with the present matter. Number of witnesses interrogated during investigation have disclosed the name of the

¶9

applicant in committing the present offence. A prima facie case is made out against the applicants.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Kuldeep Pathak involved in Case Crime No.187 of 2017, under Sections 15/16 Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Amendment) Act, 2011, Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Section 3/4 Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 379, 427 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Highway, District Mathura be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed.

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.10.2018 Dev/-

Kuldeep Pathak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Pathak 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Vs State of U.P.

Anish @Olanga Vs State of U.P.

Raju Verma Vs State of U.P.

Gahma @ Gahma Nath Vs State of U.P.

Murad Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Chauhan Vs State of U.P.