Allowed

Sumit Narayan @ Tinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2021BAIL/37433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The court emphasized the absence of convincing material to indicate tampering with evidence and allowed the applicant to furnish a bond with sureties, subject to strict attendance conditions and a one-year trial limit.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each in the like amount, subject to specific conditions for trial attendance and potential proclamation.

Sumit Narayan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37433 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sumit Narayan @ Tinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.227 of 2020, under Sections 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Bela, District Auraiya.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the impugned first information report and also the bail rejection order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. From the joint possession of applicant and co-accused person, one motorcycle, 4 golden ring and one golden mangalsutra are said to have been recovered. He further submits that nothing incriminating article has been recovered. The alleged recovery that has been shown is false and fabricated. There is no public witness of the alleged recovery. After arrest, the applicant has also been implicated in other case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He further submits that applicant is having previous criminal history of one case in which he is on bail. The applicant is in jail since 04.09.2020.

¶9

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

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of

¶11

detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Sumit Narayan @ Tinku , who is involved 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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible 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 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

Order Date :- 4.12.2021 Ajeet

Sumit Narayan @ Tinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Narayan @ Tinku 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

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Govind Ram @ Latoori Vs State of U.P.

Mohsin Alias Paua Vs State of U.P.

Nishant Vs State of U.P.

Jalil Khan @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

Sandip Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.