Allowed

Kallu Ahirwar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2022BAIL/38988/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant despite the serious nature of charges (IPC 420, 467, 468, 120-B). The court noted the applicant alleged innocence, co-accused anteriority, and heavy dockets preventing near-future trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties each of like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38988 of 2022 Applicant :- Kallu Ahirwar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Fakhruzzaman

¶2

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶3

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

¶4

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.79 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Babeena, District- Jhansi.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the first information report. It is submitted that the applicant is alleged to be a witness to the bainama (sale deed) and he is not a beneficiary of the alleged bainama. It is submitted that the the date of incident is indicated as 15.10.2020 whereas the FIR has been lodged on 31.03.2022 in furtherance of oerder being passed by the learned Magistrate on the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was filed on 03.03.2022. It is further submitted that the inordinate delay has not been explained in the FIR. It is further submitted that the co-accused Uttam Singh Yadav and Jwala Prasad Mishra have been granted anticipatory bail by another Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.3792 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.3793 of 2022, respectively. Copies of the bail orders have been produced by counsel for the applicant before this Court during course of the argument. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant having better case for getting bail on account of parity. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 09.06.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case as the accused is stated be a witness to the alleged forged bainama (sale deed), I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶8

Let applicant namely Kallu Ahirwar be released on bail in the 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:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.9.2022 SK Goswami

¶15

Digitally signed by SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI Date: 2022.09.26 17:24:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kallu Ahirwar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu Ahirwar 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

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr.X(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Alam @ Mohd. Alam @ Sheru Vs State of U.P.

Akash Jat Vs State of U.P.

Babby @ Samim Iqbal Vs State of U.P.