Allowed

Karunesh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2019BAIL/38552/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Karunesh Sharma, who was implicated in offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The Court found it to be a fit case for bail despite the gravity of the offences and directed his release on a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Karunesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38552 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Karunesh Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Karunesh Sharma in connection with Case Crime No.2002 of 2015, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that neither the applicant is the Managing Director nor Director of Cryist Marketing Pvt., Ltd. and Ezeeway Infrastructure & Land Developers Ltd. He is merely a shareholder in the aforesaid companies. He is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. Further submission is that in similar matters, various cases were registered against the present accused, in which he has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 21.12.2017, 22.2.2016, 21.3.2018, 22.3.2018, 29.2.2016 and 6.10.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46956 of 2017, 46982, 2115 of 2018, 2114 of 2018, 10542 of 2018, 10621 of 2018, 10746 of 2018, 5198 of 2016 and 4549 of 2015, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.07.2013 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Karunesh Sharma involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence

¶15

of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.9.2019 R./

Karunesh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunesh Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raheesh @ Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Gupta @ Rakesh Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Bhujbal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohit and Another Vs State of U.P.