Allowed

Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2022/11190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant charged under Section 386 IPC. The court noted the absence of corroborative evidence such as a cyber expert report and the lack of proven motive or antecedents, deeming it a fit case for release on bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, attendance in court, and consequences of misusing bail.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11190 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Chandra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 282 of 2022, under Section 386 IPC, P.S. - Tarabganj, District - Gonda.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that there is an allegation against the applicant that he has sought ransom by way of sending Facebook messages; and EMI detail was traced out. Though there is no any corroborative evidence in support of the aforesaid allegation. He submits that in fact the motive is not proved and further there is no any Cyber expert report so as to connect the present applicant in the instant matter. He also added that it seems that due to enmity police has planted the applicant in the instant matter. He also added that he is unaware about the fact that how the message of the aforesaid was sent from the Facebook of the informant. He next added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 03.08.2022. He further added that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that after a through investigation when it was found that the message was sent through the Facebook of the present applicant to the victim. He further added that the offence is very serious in nature and the applicant is found involved and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶9

Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there is allegation that a message was sent by the Facebook of the present applicant to the Facebook of the victim and ransom was asked but there is no other corroborative evidence in support thereof like the Cyber Crime expert report; further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and no enmity or the motive is proved and the applicant is languishing in jail 03.08.2022. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Kuldeep Singh 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:-

¶11

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

¶12

investigation or trial;

¶13

(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;

¶14

(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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.11.2022 KR

¶19

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.25 10:22:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kuldeep Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh 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

Deepu Yadav @ Chhote Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Masook Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy. Home Lucknow

Kallu @Shamshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home

Naushad Sheikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Riyaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Shivam Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.