Allowed

Vineet Kumar @ Nikhil Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2020BAIL/19202/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by four student applicants in connection with a crime involving physical assault. The court granted bail upon a personal bond and two sureties, imposing strict conditions regarding court presence and conduct to prevent abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding court attendance, non-obstruction of evidence, and consequences for non-compliance.

Vineet Kumar @ Nikhil Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19202 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet Kumar @ Nikhil Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kishun Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants in Case Crime No. 0024 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 308, 332, 353, 188, 269, 270 & 34 I.P.c., and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932; Section 3 of Pandemic Act, 1897; Section 54 of Disaster Management Act, 2005; P.S.- Dheena, District- Chandauli.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that general role of physical assault has been assigned to more than hundred people. The applicants are students and they are languishing in jail since 15.05.2020.

¶8

It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicants, as narrated by the learned AGA, are in relation to the incident, which occurred within a short gap of time and in all those cases the applicants have already been enlarged on bail on 18.05.2020 by the learned Court below.

¶9

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

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let applicants- Vineet Kumar @ Nikhil Kumar, Veer Kumar @ Krishna Kumar both sons of Subhash Chandra , Pradumn Kumar s/o Sudarshan & Akshay Kumar s/o Vijendra Ram, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶13

(ii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;

¶14

(iii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(iv) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and

¶16

(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.8.2020 P Kesari

Vineet Kumar @ Nikhil Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar @ Nikhil Kumar and 3 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Harsh Vardhan @ Umesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Irfan Mutawalli and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.