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

Court No. - 28

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5716 of 2022

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shailendra Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 545 of 2021, U/S 34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 65, 66-C, 66-D and 72 of Information & Technology Act, 2008, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Angad Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13699 of 2021. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.4.2022, having no criminal history. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶9

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Krishna Kumar Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime number 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.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence

¶12

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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.6.2022 Shalini

¶19

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.03 13:06:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramshankar Vs State of U.P.

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

Ashok Kumar Malik Vs Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate CBI Ayodhya Prakran, Lucknow and Another

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Arun Prakash Tripathi @ Satyam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajat Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Princ. Secrty. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another