Allowed

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

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2020ABAIL/793/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sachin Kumar in a corruption case involving IPC Section 409 and PCA Sections 7/13. The court noted the applicant's lack of antecedents and granted bail subject to specific bond conditions and directives for expedited investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each of like amount.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 793 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Shri S.M.A Abdy, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A for the state and perused the material on record and rejection order.

¶6

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and that the applicant was just a member of the team which conducted the raid and he has no role to play in the offence and he has not received any share out of the total money recovered in the raid. He further contended that there is no complicity of the applicant in the present case, neither any recovery has been shown from the applicant nor he is said to have received any money from any person and that he has been named as an accused only on the basis of suspicion. He further contended that the money is shown to have been recovered from co-accused Sandeep Kumar. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9

In the event of arrest of applicant- Sachin Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 2423 of 2019, under section 409 I.P.C. & Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Indrapuram, District-Ghaziabad, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶11

that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶12

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶13

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶14

that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;

¶15

that the applicant is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶20

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the cognizance/committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶21

In view of aforesaid, the present Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶22

However it is made clear that the case of present applicant stands on the different footing with that of other two co-accused i.e. SHO- Deepak Sharma & S.I.-Sandeep Kumar.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.2.2020 Vikas

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Surendra Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Manjoor Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Radha Krishna Bharti Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh Rathore @ V.S. Rathore Vs S.P.E./C.B.I./ Acu-Vi New Delhi