Kumud Rai Vs State of Up and Another

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1557 of 2022

Applicant :- Kumud Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Utsav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R. relates to the selection proceedings which were held in the year 2016. The applicant was not selected in the aforesaid recruitment proceedings. The applicant did not submit any forged testimonials which misled the authorities into appointing him against the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruence in role and seeks parity in relief granted to other co-accused namely Mohammad Hammad, Raman Singh, Saumya Rai, Sudhir Kumar Pal, Kanchan Verma, Aditya Saxena and Poornima Shukla, who have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by other coordinate benches of the Hon'ble High Court and photocopies of anticipatory bail orders of some of the co-accused persons submitted by the learned counsel for applicant are taken on record and some of the orders granting anticipatory bail are on pages No. 26 to 36 to the affidavit filed in support of this anticipatory bail application. Apart from the instant case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶7

Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has parity with other co-accused persons. The learned AGA also does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶8

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and hold that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶9

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶10

The applicant- Kumud Rai is granted anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Rajghat District Gorakhpur, till the conclusion of the trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall attend the court proceedings as and when required;

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise or to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

¶13

as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail before this Court.

¶16

In case any false facts have been stated on behalf of the applicant or material facts have been suppressed, the State or any concerned party may file an application for recall of this order.

¶17

The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.6.2022 LBY

¶19

Digitally signed by LAL BAHADUR YADAV Date: 2022.06.29 12:23:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kumud Rai v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumud Rai v. State of Up and Another

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

Neel Kamal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kavi Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Imran @ Natendar Vs State of U.P.

Shravan Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.