Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2021BAIL/11034/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a 2nd bail application under Section 392 IPC, observing that charges were not framed and a co-accused had been released. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions regarding court attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11034 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohan Gupta,Ankit Saran,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

This is second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.12.2019.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.129 of 2019, under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr.

¶9

As per the prosecution case, on 28.06.2019 the informant had withdrew Rs. 50,000/- from his account and was returning home, two persons followed him and on gun point looted the bag, in which he had kept the said amount, pass book and PAN card. On raising the alarm, people gathered and the applicant was arrested on the spot, while other co-accused, namely Rajeev succeeded in fleeing away from the place of occurrence with the said bag.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- was not looted by the applicant. He next submitted that in this case neither charge has been framed against the applicant nor any witnesses have been examined before the trial court. He also submitted that coaccused Raju @ Jai Prakash @ Raju has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2019 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 43290 of 2019 from whose possession Rs. 5,000/- had been recovered. There is no recovery from the possession of the applicant. The applicant

¶11

has no criminal history as mentioned in paragraph no. 11 to the bail application. There is no possibility of the applicant of 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 there is no criminal history of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 29.06.2019.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant Pradeep Kumar but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, till now charge being not framed and enlargement of co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar 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 :-

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.1.2021 P.S.Parihar

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vijendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vipin @ Sudesh Vs State of U.P.

Azad Vs State of U.P.

Siddharth Jain Vs State of U.P.

Salman @ Prince Vs State of U.P.