Allowed

Kartar @ Guru @ Swami v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/10082/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Short order allowing bail to the applicant under Sections 392 and 411 IPC. The court found merit in the counsel's submission regarding false implication and lack of independent witness to recovery, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Kartar @ Guru @ Swami Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10082 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kartar @ Guru @ Swami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Sharma,Pankaj Sharma,Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 370 of 2021 at Police Station Hathras Gate, District Hathras, under Sections 392, 411, IPC. The applicant is in jail since 23.12.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hathras, on 14.02.2022.

¶7

Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Rs. 70,000/- cash has been shown as recovered from the applicant. Recovered amount were planted on the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of the police investigators. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The money belongs to the applicant. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal

¶8

history of the applicant and contends that the same has no bearing on the instant case.

¶9

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant- Kartar @ Guru @ Swami be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person

¶17

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 Pravin

¶20

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.05.31 10:10:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kartar @ Guru @ Swami v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartar @ Guru @ Swami v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lodha @ Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Yadav Vs Union of India

Meenu Sain Vs State of U.P.

Haseen @ Yaseen Vs State of U.P.