Allowed

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 May 2022BAIL/16034/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court allowed a bail application filed by Sarvesh Kumar, noting his lack of criminal history and the fact that a co-accused had already been released. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail pending investigation/trial subject to conditions of personal bond, sureties, and strict attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16034 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Crime No. 94 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 63 Copy Right Act, at Police Station- Sidhari District- Azamgarh.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history. It is further stated that the recovery as shown by the prosecution is false, as there is no independent public witness to it. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused namely Atal Bihari Vajpeyi has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.04.2022 and passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15005 of 2022, as such, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. It is also stated that the applicant is in jail since 20.02.2022.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accusedapplicant including that similarly placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, period of incarceration, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including that similarly placed co-accused has already been released on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶10

Let applicant- Sarvesh Kumar be released on bail in the

¶11

aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse 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 fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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. 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

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶17

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶18

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 16.5.2022 Arun/-

¶21

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR Date: 2022.05.16 16:39:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Vs State of U.P.

Taalib Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Sharma @ Lala Vs State of U.P.

Golu Seth @ Subham Sheth @ Gajni Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Gupta Vs State of U.P.