Allowed

Vikas Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2022/13476/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 392, 411 IPC, the High Court granted bail to Vikas Kumar. The court relied on the prosecution witness's inability to identify the accused and recovery of stolen money and a pistol from the accused. Bail was granted subject to personal bonds and sureties with specific conditions regarding attendance and tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Vikas Kumar released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13476 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vikas Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshav Prasad,Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui,Suresh Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The 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. 497 of 2021, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S.- Beniganj, District - Hardoi.

¶7

As per version of prosecution, Rs. 50,000/- is said to be looted by the present applicant.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next added that PW-1 during his statement in examination-in-chief, has stated that he could not identify the applicant, as he is very old age person and his eye site is also weak. He next added that no identification parade was ever done as per the law and further there is no any independent witness of the aforesaid loot. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 12 of the bail application that applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 20.08.2021. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that on the basis of counter affidavit present applicant was involved in committing the offence as Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from his possession and pistol has also been recovered from his possession and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard, the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that P.W. 1 in his statement in examination-in-chief, has very specifically mentioned the fact that he could not identify the present applicant as his eye site is weak and further there is no independent eye witness of the

¶11

aforesaid loot; further there is no other criminal history against the applicant; coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 20.08.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Vikas 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 :- 17.10.2022 Ujjawal

¶20

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.10.17 18:39:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vikas Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas 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

Ikram Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Jabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Prem Lata Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Tarun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Basudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow