Allowed

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022/10547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench allowed a bail application filed by Dheeraj Kumar. Despite the State's objection regarding recovered articles and arrest, the court found the case fit for bail given the lack of cogent evidence and nothing to deny bail, imposing strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10547 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 217 of 2022, under Sections 392, 411, 413, 414 IPC, Police StationAlambag, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He next added that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him in the instant matter. He next submits that in fact due to certain quarrel between the applicant and complainant the instant FIR has been lodged and there is no truthfulness in the first information report. He next added that the applicant has one case previous criminal antecedent, which has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 04.08.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the applicant was arrested on spot and looted article was recovered from the possession of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that as per the assertion of the counsel for the applicant, there was quarrel between the applicant and complainant and due to enmity instant FIR has been filed; there is no cogent piece of evidence; further one case criminal history has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 04.08.2022.

¶11

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Dheeraj Kumar involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶20

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.10 09:24:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Monis Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and 4 Others

Babloo Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dillip Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Mahesh Lonia Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Alok Mishra Vs State of U.P.