Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2019CRLA/3862/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge was set aside and appellant was released on bail subject to furnishing bond and sureties and complying with strict conditions against tampering and absence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of presence and non-tampering.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3862 of 2019 Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Smt. Ushma Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶2

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.

¶3

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Varanasi in Bail Application No.1486 of 2019 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2019, under Sections 323, 342, 363, 370,506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Maduadeeh, District- Varanasi, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶4

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 21.03.2019 at about 8:30 PM, the victim had gone to see the dance programme on the eve of Holi festival but thereafter she did not return back to her house. On 22.03.2019 at about 8:00 AM in the morning, Anju Devi, wife of the appellant Vinod Kumar, left her at her own house. On being questioned, the victim informed the first informant that last night she along with Vinod Kumar had gone at his house where she over heard the appellant talking to someone on phone for bringing her to Delhi and the appellant Vinod Gupta is said to have threatened her not to disclose the said story to anyone, else her parents would be done to death. The parents of Neha informed the Police and the appellant was arrested. In the morning, victim's daughter Neha is said to have been dropped at her house.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant has next drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the victim's daughter Neha recorded under Section 164 CrPC, where she stated to have over heard the conversation between the appellant and his wife to have sold one Karishma and that the same fate be meted to her also however on getting information on a phone call by Rajkumar that the victim's parents have informed the Police and they may be arrested, she was dropped at her house but there is no link evidence to support the said statement.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that appellant is in jail since 24.03.2019 and he has no criminal antecedent and in case, if the appellant is released on bail, there

¶7

is no chance of his fleeing away from judicial process or tampering the witnesses as such prima facie a case for his release on bail is made out.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail but could not point out any link evidence which shows that the appellant has been connected in any manner with the offence of trafficking of Karishma as stated in the statement of the victim's daughter Neha recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the fact that the appellant is in jail since 24.03.2019 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, the appeal has substance. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.

¶10

The impugned order dated 18.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Varanasi in Bail Application No.1486 of 2019 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2019, is set-aside and the bail application of appellant stands allowed.

¶11

Let the appellant Vinod Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶13

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty

¶16

to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.10.2019/Zafar

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Indrapal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jugul Pandey @ Phauji and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Enamulhaq Alias Salman Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vinod and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Gaurh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another