Allowed

Vineet Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2020BAIL/5580/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to Vineet Kumar Tiwari, an Arms Clerk III under suspension, in a case involving the issuance of fraudulent arms licences. The applicant submitted that co-accused were already on bail and sought no harm in jurisprudence, but the court granted bail subject to standard conditions including personal bonds and surrenders to the extent of service of summons.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions of personal bond and two local surety.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5580 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Lochan Shukla,Ravikant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.224 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with regard to fraudulent issuing of arm licences an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry it is found that one Jitendra Kumar was working in Arms Department on contractual basis as a Computer Operator, who had admitted that he had issued fraudulent arms booklet for Rs.30,000/-. Applicant was Arms Clerk III and it came into light that fraudulent arms licence were issued and files regarding the arm licence were missing. Applicant by scanning signature of the District Magistrate prepared invalid 90 licences. The co-accused Jitendra Singh has been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4009 of 2020 (Jitendra Kumar @ Jitu Vs.State of U.P.) vide order dated 27.01.2020. The co-accused Sanjeev @ Bauwa and Mritunjay Pratap Singh @ Shubham were involved in the fraudulent activity of issuing the arms licence. They were granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48304 of 2019 (Sanjeev Singh @ Bauwa and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide order dated 13.11.2019. The co-accused Vishal Prajapati, who was employed as a Carpenter in the office of the District Magistrate was released on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.53852 of 2019 (Vishal Prajapati Vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 04.12.2019. The co-accused Mukul Kushawaha, who was also working in the Arms Department was released on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2713 of 2020 (Mukul Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P) vide order dated 18.01.2020.. Lastly, he submits that the applicant is running under suspension. There is no possibility of the applicant of

¶8

fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in juail since 07.09.2019.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was responsible for issuing the arms licence. Department has not provided printer to him. On their own cost the accused persons have set up the printer and by scanning the signature of the District Magistrate the applicant has issued fraudulent arms licences but could not dispute the aforesaid fact that co-accused have already been released on bail

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Vineet Kumar Tiwari involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶12

(ii) 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.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant 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 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.

¶14

(iv) 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 absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.6.2020 MAA/-

Vineet Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet Kumar Tiwari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Achhey Vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ashar Vs State of U.P.

Manish Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.