Allowed

Amit Kumar @ Dablu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2020BAIL/2709/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under Sections 363, 366, and 343 IPC, the court considered rival contentions regarding innocence and severity of punishment. The court allowed the application, releasing the applicant on bail with personal bond, sureties, and undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Amit Kumar @ Dablu released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence, seeking adjournments, or indulging in criminal activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2709 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar @ Dablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarpal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.452 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 and 343 I.P.C., Police Station Rajapur, District Sambhal, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the Informant. He has committed no offence. Entire prosecution story is false and fake. It is further submitted that the victim and applicant are major. As per statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. made by victim before the Magistrate, there is no allegation of rape and stated that on 09.10.2019 at about 01:00 PM accused dragged her in his house and detained her for three days. Applicant is in jail since 23.11.2019 having no criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Due to heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no possibility of early conclusion of the trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but did not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that accused dragged the victim without her consent and detained in house.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, age of victim,

¶10

statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., allegation made against the applicant and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶11

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Amit Kumar @ Dablu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.1.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Amit Kumar @ Dablu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar @ Dablu 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

Khardookshan @ Bhaiyyan @ Tiger Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rishipal Singh @ Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Hetram Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Tiwari @ Aman Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another