Allowed

Kalau Alias Kamla Kant v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022/3227/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to the applicant, stating he was not named in the FIR while main accused were already on bail, invoking Article 21 and Dataram Singh, imposing standard conditions including cooperation with trial and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court and cooperate in trial.

Kalau Alias Kamla Kant Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3227 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kalau Alias Kamla Kant Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Rabbani,Mohd. Gayur Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

This case is taken up in the revised call.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2019, under Section 460 IPC, P.S. Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He has been falsely implicated.He is not named in the FIR. It has also been submitted that co-accused Pawan Kumar and Sanjay @ Sanju, who were the main accused, have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 16.12.2019 & 26.06.2020 respectively by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits other coaccused, namely Raje @ Ram Chandar and Rooplal have also been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 03.09.2020 and 27.07.2021 passed in Bail No. 6156 of 2020 and 4550 of 2021 respectively.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the applicant is not even named in the FIR, therefore, he is on better footing than that of other co-accused, who have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. In such circumstances, the instant bail application may be allowed. It has further been submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering the witnesses, in case, he has been enlarged on bail and he shall abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail.

¶12

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of

¶13

law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that except this case accused-applicant has been falsely roped in some other cases, details of which have already been explained in paragraph 20 of the bail application and it was further argued that in all the cases the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police and in the present case the applicant is in jail since 27.07.2019 and has by now done a substantial period of incarceration, therefore, the bail application of the applicant may also be considered by this Court sympathetically and he should also be released on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant is involved in the heinous crime and his bail application may be rejected but did not dispute this fact that the similarly circumstanced and identically placed other co-accused have been granted bail.

¶15

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that co-accused Pawan Kumar and Sanjay @ Sanju, who were the main accused, have already been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 16.12.2019 & 26.06.2020 and the applicant is not even named in the FIR, therefore, he is on better footing than that of other co-accused, who have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Kalau alias Kamla Kant involved in Case Crime No. 227 of 2019, under Section 460 IPC, P.S. Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶18

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶20

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial, 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(6) The applicant shall remain present, 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. 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.

¶24

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶25

(8) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶26

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 4.8.2022 Arvind

¶29

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.08.08 14:04:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kalau Alias Kamla Kant v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalau Alias Kamla Kant v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Kumar @ Deepu Verma Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretarial U.P. Government Lucknow

Ankul Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Mahante Alias Chulbul Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.

Govind Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow