Allowed

Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2022/13752/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal matter involving Section 366 IPC. The applicant, who had not been named in the victim's statements and faced only a minor delay in FIR registration, was released on bail with strict conditions regarding his appearance and conduct during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions involving presence in court and non-tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13752 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Karan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Rastogi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, 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. 183 of 2022, under Section 366 IPC, P.S.- Loni Katra, District - Barabanki.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next added that FIR is delayed by two days as the incident is said to be taken place on 13.06.2022 and FIR was lodged on 15.06.2022. He submits that victim has not named the present applicant in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He added that main allegation is against one Aman and, as such, present applicant is not involved in committing the offence. He next added that there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter and even the statement of the victim also supports the version of present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 18.08.2022. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was named in the FIR and he has been assigned main role for enticing away the victim from lawful guardianship of her parents and, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that FIR was registered with a delay of two days as the incident had taken place on 13.06.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 15.06.2022; further victim has not named the present applicant in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.; further main allegation is against one Aman and, as such, the present applicant is not involved in

¶10

committing the offence; further there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter and even the statement of the victim also supports the version of present applicant, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 18.08.2022, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Karan 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:-

¶12

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the 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 :- 28.11.2022 Ujjawal

¶19

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.11.30 19:53:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

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

Roshan Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Abhay Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dilshad Khan @ Raja Vs State of U.P.

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

Saidu Khan Vs State of U.P.