Allowed

Vijendra Kapoor v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022BAIL/52813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an applicant charged with manufacturing spurious liquor and presenting fabricated bills. The court cited jail overcrowding during the pandemic and granted bail on personal bond and sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence or commit crimes.

Vijendra Kapoor Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52813 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vijendra Kapoor Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinayak Ranajan learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha 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 Vijendra Kapoor for seeking bail in Case Crime No.220 of 2021 under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C. and Section 60A of Excise Act registered at Police StationAqrabad, District-Aligarh.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 27.10.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Sub-Inspector Sri Pravesh Kumar before Police Station-Aqrabad, District-Aligarh being FIR No.220 on 31.5.2021 at 7.33 hours, under under Sections 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 60A of Excise Act referable to the commissioning of the offence of manufacturing of spurious liquor. He has further argued that the applicant is a owner of factory which manufactures sanitizer etc. possessing valid licence. He has further argued that he under bona fide relief and after completion of the necessary formality therein supplied articles, however the same has been used by the accused for making spurious liquor but the same cannot be ground to hold the applicant guilty. He has further argued that no recovery has been made from him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this court towards paragraph 44 of the bail application so as to contend that as many as 8 cases are shown to be pending against the application with relation to Case Crime No.165 of 2021, under Sections 272, 273, 307, 304 I.P.C. and Section 60A of the U.P. Excise Act, he has filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3047 of 2022 which is pending before this Court whereas so far as Case Crime No.188 of 2021, under Sections 272, 273, 304 IPC and Section 60 of the U.P.

¶10

Excise Act is concerned he has filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.887 of 2022 which is also pending before this Court. He has further argued that so far as Case Crime Nos.232 of 2021, 334 of 2021 and 302 of 2021 they are all under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act and Case Crime No. 224 of 2021, under Sections 272, 273 IPC and 60A, 61(1) and 62of the U.P. Excise Act are concerned, the same are post lodging of the present FIR. Similarly so far as Case Crime No.220 of 2021 is concerned, the same is the present FIR. So far as the Case Crime No.146 of 2022 is concerned learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the order dated 7.1.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.51666 of 2021 wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail and he is languishing in jail since 13.6.2021. He has further argued that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

Countering the said submissions learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail, while arguing that the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail as he has committed offence though the learned AGA could not dispute that the applicant has explained criminal history satisfactorily and further the fact that coaccused has been enlarged on bail.

¶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 the applicant has explained the criminal history and further the coaccused 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 any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Vijendra Kapoor 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 :-

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the 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) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 8.2.2022

¶25

piyush

¶26

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.09 18:04:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijendra Kapoor v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Kapoor 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

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Keshav Dev Lavaniya Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Moolchandra Vs State of U.P.

Piyush Mishra Vs State of U.P.

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

Dushyant @ Kanha Vs State of U.P.