Allowed

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2022BAIL/1069/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a bail application moved by the accused-applicant Manish Kumar in a case involving theft and forgery under the IPC. The Court observed that evidence recovery was doubtful due to lack of independent public witnesses and noted that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount subject to conditions including not to tamper with evidence or commit further crimes.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1069 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Dhirendra Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant -Manish Kumar for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 648 of 2021 , under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

It is further submitted that even if the allegations contained in the recovery memo are believed, the police party was having prior information of the arrival of the applicant and other co-accused persons and admittedly no efforts have been made by the police party to procure any independent public witness, and thus, the recovery as well as arrest of the applicant becomes doubtful in absence of any independent public witness.

¶9

It is also submitted that by the arrest of the applicant in the instant case, six criminal cases have been slapped and prior to the arrest of the applicant in this case, the applicant was not having any criminal history.

¶10

It is next submitted that the co-accused of the

¶11

crime, namely, Ritik Yadav having identical role in the instant criminal case, has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.2.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48824 of 2021.

¶12

It is again submitted that the alleged offences against the applicant are triable by the Magistrate and the Investigating OfÏcer has already submitted charge sheet in the matter. Lastlly, it is submitted that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail in this matter since 30.9.2021 and there is no apprehension that the accusedapplicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail. Charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed.

¶13

Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposes the prayer for bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and he is also having criminal history, but could not confront the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been involved in other criminal cases only on account of his arrest in the instant case and identically placed co-accused person has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the accused-applicant -Manish Kumar involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial

¶18

sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.3.2022

¶23

Sumaira

¶24

Digitally signed by SUMAIRA AQUIL Date: 2022.03.22 15:55:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Rajbhar Vs State of Up Thru Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Administrative Officer Vs Smt. Prema Devi and 6 Others

Mohammad Ali Shan and Another Vs Manish Agarwal

Shanu Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Yadav @ Krishna Vs State of U.P.

Subhan Vs State of U.P.