Allowed

Nand Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil Secrt.Lko

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2022/205/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting bail to the applicant, Nand Kumar, in a criminal proceeding involving alleged theft and detailing the conditions of release aimed at securing his attendance and preventing evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding presence in court and no tampering with witnesses.

Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 205 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nand Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil Secrt.Lko

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh,Dinesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

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.775 of 2021, under Sections 457, 381, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that incident is said to have taken place on 8.10.2022. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant though on the pointing out of the applicant and one other co-accused person, Rs.4,20,000/- was recovered from the back side of the alleged building. He submits that in fact, the present applicant was not involved in the offence but the police has planted and shown recovery of the aforesaid amount from the pointing out of the applicant. Charge sheet has been filed and, as such, there is no possibility of either fleeing away from the trial or tampering the evidence or threatening the witnesses. There is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 16 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 10.10.2021. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that on the pointing out of present applicant and one other co-accused stolen amount was recovered. He further added that as per the evidence, the applicant was found involved in committing the offence, 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 nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant though on the alleged

¶11

pointing out of the applicant and one other co-accused person, Rs.4,20,000/- was recovered from the back side of the building; charge sheet has been filed and, as such, there is no possibility of either fleeing away from the trial or tampering the evidence or threatening the witnesses; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 16 of the bail application; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2021.

¶12

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 considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Nand 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.10.2022 Ram Murti

¶22

Digitally signed by RAM MURTI YADAV Date: 2022.10.14 15:09:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nand Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil Secrt.Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil Secrt.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

Rajneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home.Lko

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

Kamla Maghar Vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Ncb Lucknow and Anr.

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Lucknow

Pradeep Kumar @ Dakiya Vs State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy. Home, Lko

Mohammad Israr Vs State of U.P.