Allowed

Piyush Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2021ABAIL/4943/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants falsely impliced in a closed shop case involving appointment by fraudulent certificates. The bail is subject to personal bond with sureties and conditions regarding passport, inducement, and attendance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond with two sureties each and specific conditions regarding travel, passport, witness interference, and court attendance.

Piyush Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4943 of 2021 Applicant :- Piyush Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,Sanjay Kumar,Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0188 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kampil, District- Farrukhabad during pendency of trial.

¶6

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.

¶7

There is allegation against the applicants that they tried to obtain appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers on the basis of fraudulent certificates and mark-sheets.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. No enquiry was initiated nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the applicants before implication in the present case. Their credentials were genuine. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event the applicants Piyush Kumar, Ajay Singh, Surajbhan Verma and Archana Yadav are arrested, they shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶13

The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶14

3.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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.

¶16

In case the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the trial 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 .

¶17

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 her bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.7.2021 rkg

Piyush Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Sabruddin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Rajenti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P

Sunil @ Bauwa Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Alias Dheeraj Vs state of Up