Allowed

Abhinva Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2022BAIL/2163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal trial case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. The court found it a fit case for bail as co-accused were released and the applicant had no criminal history, referencing Article 21 and Di...

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and undertakings against witness tampering and ensuring presence during trial proceedings.

Abhinva Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2163 of 2022 Applicant :- Abhinva Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 896 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Sector 58 NOIDA, District Gautambuddha Nagar.

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next contends that the similarly placed co-accused namely Satnam and Mahipal Yadav have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.975 of 2022 and 4524 of 2022 vide orders dated 21.2.2022 and 16.2.2022. He next submits that applicant was not involved in committing the aforesaid offence and a false recovery of two mobile phones and two adhar card have been shown from the possession of the applicants. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 17 that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.11.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶6

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail but he could not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further there is no criminal history against the applicant.

¶7

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, further there is no other criminal history against the applicant, coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 1.11.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶8

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of

¶9

conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Abhinva Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶11

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

¶12

(2) 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. He 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

(3) 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.; and

¶14

(4) In case, the applicant misuses 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 fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.2.2022 Mini

¶18

Digitally signed by MINI KANAUJIYA Date: 2022.02.25 12:09:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abhinva Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinva 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

Muntjir @ Munti Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Patel Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Kumar Vs State of U.P.