Allowed

Nirmal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2021BAIL/48027/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant in a cheque-related cheating and forgery case involving IPC offences. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties subject to trial attendance and no tampering with evidence.

Nirmal Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48027 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Nirmal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.99 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Khejuri, District Ballia.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to F.I.R. version a Customer Service Point was opened in the year 2016, which was closed in the year 2018 and it is alleged that applicant and co-accused Devanand Chauhan misappropriated the money of customers. He further submits that there is no disclosure of which customer's money has been misappropriated and F.I.R. has also been lodged by delay of near about two years. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. 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 the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submits that the applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Nirmal 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 :-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶11

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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Jitendra

Nirmal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal 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

Shahabuddin Vs State of U.P.

Soran Singh Vs State of U.P.

Santram Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Dubey @ Monu Vs State of U.P.