Allowed

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2021BAIL/5555/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Sachin Kumar charged under IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B. The applicant alleged false implication, citing no incriminating articles recovered. He is to be released on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail executing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5555 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sachin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai,Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Sachin Kumar in connection with Case Crime No.1523 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kalyanpur, district Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the complainant Rajeev Mishra against the applicant. It was alleged in the first information report that the applicant was trying to appear in SSC Delhi Police Examination in place of some other person. It was further alleged that the applicant was arrested before he could appear in the examination.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the applicant was police constable posted at Firozabad. He submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that the applicant was trying to appear in the examination in place of some other person. He submitted that nothing incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He submitted that all the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.12.2020, hence he is entitled to be released on bail and he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 , but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Sachin Kumar involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses;

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission;

¶16

v) The applicant 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.2.2021

¶20

R./

Sachin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaushal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vikendra @ Chaiti and Another Vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hamid Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P.

Banka Vs State of U.P.