Allowed

Prakash Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 May 2021ABAIL/4639/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by four applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted anticipatory bail for a limited period till 03.01.2022 based on special grounds of grave apprehension to the applicants life due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inability to appear in court physically. Several conditions were imposed, including prohibition of leaving the country and obstructi

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till 03.01.2022 on specific conditions including not leaving the country and appearing on fixed dates.

Prakash Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4639 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Prakash Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiva Priya Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Kumar Singh,Vijay Laxmi

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, Prakash Kumar,Dinesh,Santosh and Prem Kumar in Case Crime No. 395 of 2018 (Case No. 1584 of 2019) under Section 354,504,506 IPC, Police Station- Line Bazaar District- Jaunpur.

¶8

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

Charge sheet has already been submitted against the applicants. Without disclosing the full facts about the proceedings conducted after filing of charge sheet by the Investigating Officer in Court and what is the stage of proceedings before the Court below, this anticipatory bail application has been filed.

¶10

Counsel for the applicants submits that there is grave apprehension to the life of the applicants, in case they are directed to surrender before Court below for the purpose of grant of regular bail, on account of the threat to their life posed by second wave of Novel Corona Virus. Applicants may be protected till the wave subsides and the normalcy returns in society and Courts both. The applicants cannot get any document from the Court below at present on account of closure and irregular functioning of court below and the applicant would get arrested if the matter is postponed to future date.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

Keeping in view the judmgent of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4002 of 2021, Prateek Jain vs. State of U.P., dated 10.05.2021 this application is being disposed of.

¶13

In case of their arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for a limited period, till 03.01.2022 on the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.

¶15

The applicants shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial/investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the

¶17

evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;

¶18

The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court/Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case they have no passport, they will file their affidavits before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.

¶19

That the applicants 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 his from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶20

The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶21

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶22

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

¶23

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, 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 his in accordance with law.

¶24

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website

¶25

of High Court Allahabad.

¶26

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.

¶27

The applicants are warned not to get themselves implicated in any crime and should keep distance from the informant and not to misuse the liberty granted hereby. Any misuse of liberty granted by this Court would be viewed seriously against the applicants in further proceedings.

¶28

This anticipatory bail application is being allowed on account of special conditions and on special ground. The normal grounds, settled for the grant of anticipatory bail, have not been considered by this Court and it would be open for the applicant to approach this Court again, if so adviced, in changed circumstances.

¶29

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 13.5.2021 Atul kr. sri.

Prakash Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subedar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heera Lal and 20 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Harakh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vidhan Vyas Vs State of U.P.

Dr. V.K. Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another