Allowed

Amit @ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 May 2022BAIL/17511/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant in a theft case under Sections 380 and 411 IPC. The court noted co-accused were already released on bail and found the case fit for bail subject to conditions requiring presence in court and furnishing of bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of a like amount subject to specified conditions.

Amit @ Rinku Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17511 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Amit @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,Kuldeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 29 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC, Police Station- Bela, District- Auraiya.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR in issue is regarding theft against unknown persons. During investigation, the applicant and other persons were apprehended by the police. At that point of time, as per the prosecution, the applicant was sitting in the vehicle. This vehicle does not belong to the applicant. It is further stated that the recovery as shown by the prosecution is false, as there is independent public witness to it. Co-accused namely Rashid Alias Rajveer Shukla and Shahid Hussain have already been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 06.05.2022 and 29.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 17830 of 2022 and 14661 of 2022. It is also stated that the applicant is in jail since 23.02.2022. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled to bail.

¶7

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 co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

¶8

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 co-accused has 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.

¶9

Let applicant- Amit @ Rinku be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond

¶10

and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.5.2022 Arun/-

¶20

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR Date: 2022.05.12 16:56:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit @ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit @ Rinku 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

Nihal Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Daman Munda Vs Union of India.

Kundali @ Vimla and Another Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Munnan Vs State of U.P.