Allowed

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2022/4508/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4508 of 2022, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 419, 420 IPC and other provisions. The court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR and moved in identical circumstances to co-accused granted bail elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and non-interference with investigation.

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4508 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit,Abhishek Dwivedi,Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ritesh Ranjan Chaubey 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. 912 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 411, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC & 66 (D) I.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶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 due to ulterior motive. He next added that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name came into light, in the statement of co-accused Lucky. Main allegation is against one Shahid Anwar, who is said to be the key player of the aforesaid offence. He next added that identical situated co-accused namely Shahid Anwar and Lucky have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2360 of 2022 and 5905 of 2022, vide orders dated 2.8.2022 and 10.10.2022 respectively. He is seeking parity of the orders aforesaid. He next added that applicant has two cases previous criminal antecedent, which has been explained in paras 11 of the bail application and apart from the aforesaid cases, there is no other previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 01.01.2022. 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 vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is named in

¶10

the F.I.R. and he has cheated the informant, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that the applicant is not named in the FIR; identical situated co-accused persons Shahid Anwar and Lucky have been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court; two cases previous criminal antecedent has been explained in para 11 of the bail application; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; and he is languishing in jail since 01.01.2022.

¶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 Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan 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

¶18

proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

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.

¶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 :- 13.10.2022 A.Kr*

¶22

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.10.16 21:15:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

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

Mohammad Ubaid Vs State of U.P.