Allowed

Karmendra Singh Chauhan @ Tinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019BAIL/28138/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail application for applicant involved in offences under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 66 Information Technology Act, providing him release on personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of trial attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

Karmendra Singh Chauhan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28138 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Karmendra Singh Chauhan @ Tinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Nath Bhakta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 0771 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66 Information Technology Act, P.S. Kotwali, district-Fatehpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report. He was arrested by the police in this case after one and half years of the incident. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. Further submission is that other co-accused Anil Kumar Singh has already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.3.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8818 of 2018, copy of bail order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

He has placed reliance in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018(3) SCC 22. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.3.2019 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is having criminal history of five cases, hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has explained the criminal history in paragraph 9 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶12

Let the applicant, Karmendra Singh Chauhan @ Tinku be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in Case Crime No. 0771 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66 Information Technology Act, P.S. Kotwali, district-Fatehpur subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 Faridul

Karmendra Singh Chauhan @ Tinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karmendra Singh Chauhan @ Tinku 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

Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Keshav Goel Vs State of U.P.

Ateeqarrhaman Alias Jagga Vs State of U.P.

Kale Vs State of U.P.

Ram Aasare Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra @ Bhola Vs State of U.P.