Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2022/235/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 235 of 2022, the Court allowed the bail application of Amit Kumar accused of offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The application was disposed of by relying on the dictum of the Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions for appearance in court at various stages and prohibition of seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 235 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Pradhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2021, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, Police Station Baddupur, District Barabanki, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant on 20.09.2021 when she had gone to take medicines from a shop.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The victim is the consenting party. Learned counsel has indicated several contradictions in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. twice. Learned counsel has further indicated that even the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not indicate any kind of serious allegation against the applicant. The victim is stated to be going with the applicant at various place and even visited the house of several relatives. Learned counsel has indicated that there are contradictions in the said statements itself. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.10.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and

¶11

another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Amit Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant 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 IPC.

¶15

(iii) 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.7.2022 Ravi Kant

¶20

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.07.12 19:07:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and Another

Arjun Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Amardeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Lala Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chandra Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.

Moharram Ali Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin. Secy.Home Lko.