Allowed

Mithilesh Kumar Mahto v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2022BAIL/3802/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Mithilesh Kumar Mahto under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under various sections of IPC and IT Act, noting the applicant was not named in the FIR and considering jail overcrowding due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions including non-interference with evidence and sincere cooperation in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3802 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Mahto Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava,Manish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Munne Lal the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Mithilesh Kumar Mahto for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.1591 of 2019 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Section 65 of the Information and Technology Act registered at Police Station-Cantt., District-Varanasi.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 5.1.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Sri Sukhram Bharti before the P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi, being FIR No. 1591 on 17.12.2019 at 17.50 hours under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. and Section 65 of the Information and Technology Act against the four accused with an allegation that the accused, who had been named in the first information report, had committed aforesaid crime relating to the recruitment so sought to be conducted by the Police Department whereby they used to get the paper solved through impersonation and after tracking by the Bio-metric card, it revealed that the aspirants, who were being shown to have participated in the said examination were elsewhere. He has thus argued that the applicant has not been named in the first information report and further on the basis of the statement of the accused Rajesh Kumar Mahto and Samir Kumar Bind, the

¶9

name of the applicant stood surfaced. He has further argued that the no incriminating articles were found to be in possession of the applicant and with relation to the criminal history though the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court paragraph 13 so as to contend that he has no criminal history but he has further sought to argue that after lodging of the present FIR another FIR in Case Crime No.1579 of 2019, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and Section 65 I.T. Act has been lodged and thus he is languishing in jail since 12.10.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this court towards page 38 of the bail application while contending that the named accused being Ajay Kumar Yadav has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this court on 18.9.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27391 of 2020 and thus he is entitled to parity.

¶11

Countering the said submissions learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail while arguing that merely because the name of the applicant does not find place in the first information report will not be a ground to hold applicant is innocent particularly in view of the fact that in the statement of the co-accused, the name of the applicant surfaced and further the applicant cannot get any benefit with respect to the fact that there was no criminal case prior to the lodging of the present FIR.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as applicant has explained criminal history and further co-accused has been enlarged on bail looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making

¶15

any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Mithilesh Kumar Mahto involved in aforesaid 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 that :-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial 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

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

¶21

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

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

¶23

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.2.2022 piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.14 17:32:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mithilesh Kumar Mahto v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar Mahto 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny Panwar Vs State of U.P.

Arman Malik @ Noor Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Vivek @ Kunnu Vs State of U.P.

Nathu Kha Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Khan Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P.