Allowed

Umesh Kabutra @ Mukhiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2021BAIL/11599/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court allowed the release of the first accused charged under Section 272 IPC and Section 60(2) Excise Act on personal bond and sureties, imposing specific conditions regarding court attendance and abandonment charges.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and evidence proceedings.

Umesh Kabutra @ Mukhiya Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11599 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Kabutra @ Mukhiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Niranjan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 12 of 2021, under Sections 272 of I.P.C. & Section 60(2) of Excise Act at Police Station Konch, District Jalaun.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further contended that alleged recovery have been made from public place but no public witness is there in the support of this recovery. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Vapeel Kabutra and Pradeep Kabutra have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.3.2021 and 14.6.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14408 of 2021 and 14018 of 2021 respectively. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.01.2021 and there is no criminal history against the applicant. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Umesh Kabutra @ Mukhiya , who is involved

¶11

in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶13

(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 IPC.

¶14

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE

¶17

EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶18

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

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

¶21

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.7.2021 SY

Umesh Kabutra @ Mukhiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kabutra @ Mukhiya 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

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Munna Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nimisha Alias Mili Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Khan @ Bhure Vs State of U.P.