Allowed

Vivek @ Kunnu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/41140/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of the applicant who was excluded from the initial FIR but was named in the injured person's statement, noting the explanation of criminal history and jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 9.2.2022 allowing bail with conditions: no tampering with evidence or witnesses, sincere cooperation in trial, no further criminal activity, and verification of identity/bond details.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41140 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek @ Kunnu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Suraj Singh, learned State Law Officer.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 205 of 2021 under Sections 307, 324 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Kanker Khera, District- Meerut.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 13.08.2021.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR was got registered by one Devendra against one Manendra and one unknown person before Police station Kanker Khera, Meerut being FIR No. 0205 on 02.04.2021 at 22:18 hours u/s 307 IPC with an allegation that the named accused Mahendra along with one another person administered grievous injury to the relative of the complainant being Balram as he sustained not only fire arm injury but also injury by blunt object. He further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as his name did not find place in the FIR, however in the confessional statement of the injured the name of the applicant has come up. The learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that he has explained criminal history in paragraph no. 17 being case crime no. 123/2016, u/s 394, 411 IPC in which the applicant has been bailed out by the court below on 08.09.2026, so far as the case crime no. 614/2017 u/s 392, 411 IPC is concerned, the applicant applicant has been enlarged on bail by the court below on 25.08.2017, in case crime no. 201/2019, u/s 392, 411 IPC, the applicant has been granted bail, in case crime no. 959/2019, u/s 392 IPC the applicant has been enlarged on bail similarly in case crime no. 221/2019, u/s 392, 411 IPC the applicant has been granted bail, so far as in case crime no. 453/2020, u/s 2/3 Gangster Act is concerned, the applicant has been bailed out coordinate Bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26384 of 2021, vide order dated 27.08.2021 as well as in the supplementary affidavit dated

¶9

16.11.2021 the applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 being case crime no. 679/2020, u/s 63 of Excise Act, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the court below on 19.08.2020, in case crime no. 135/2020, u/s 3/25 Arms Act, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by court below on 05.03.2020, in case crime no. 625/2017, u/s 25 Arms Act, the applicant has granted bail by court below and in case crime no. 1036/2020, u/s 2/3 Gangster Act, in this case the applicant has not filed any bail application so far. The learned counsle for the applicant has further argued that the co-accused Mahendra has been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Bail application No. 23536 of 2021 vide order dated 13.09.2021, thus according the counsel for the applicant the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail as he is unnecessary languishing in jail since 26.05.2021.

¶10

Countering the said submission, learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and the co-accused has been granted bail.

¶11

Considering the submission 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 the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and looking into the nature of the 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Vivek @ Kunnu 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii). The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii). The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 Nisha

¶24

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.02.21 10:54:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek @ Kunnu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek @ Kunnu 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

Vijendra Kapoor Vs State of U.P.

Piyush Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Madan Vs State of U.P., through Its Principal Secretary Home

Sunny Panwar Vs State of U.P.

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

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.