Allowed

Sandip Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2020BAIL/22501/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant in the bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court discharged the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and local sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions of presence and non-interference with prosecution evidence.

Sandip Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22501 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sandip Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Bhan Singh,Avanish Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohit Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Upendra Kumar Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is wholly innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that applicant and informant are relatives and having some business disputes due to which this criminal proceeding has been initiated, but now the parties are entered into compromise. The applicant does not have any criminal history. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 28.05.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

Sri Upendra Kumar Rai supported the version of learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that under some confusion, present proceeding was initiated against the applicant, but now the matter has been settled between the parties.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant - Sandip Kumar, involved in case crime No. 69 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 469 IPC, police station -Nanauta, District -Saharanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned. It is further provided that this bail order available on the official website of the High Court

¶10

will be taken to be the authentic one and certified copy shall be submitted before that court concerned as soon as it is issued.

¶11

This bail order would be subject to the fulfillment of following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

The applicant 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;

¶16

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant 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.

¶17

The applicant 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.9.2020 Sartaj

¶21

Digitally signed by Justice Neeraj Tiwari Date: 2020.09.28 17:11:16 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandip Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jiwan Vs State of U.P.

Brama Gangwar @ Vikrant Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Makbool Vs State of U.P.

Tara @ Istkhar Vs State of U.P.

Vikarant Tripathi Vs State of U.P.