Allowed¶11

Kaloo v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022BAIL/52958/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 52958 of 2022, decided 29.11.2022, Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) allowed for applicant Kaloo in Case Crime No. 698 of 2022 under Sections 392 and 411 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur (snatching of Rs. 1,50,000/-); applicant in custody since 20.10.2022, not named in FIR, no criminal history, kidney ailment; bail on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions; no precedent cases discussed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Kaloo on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence/intimidating witnesses, seeking adjournments, and indulging in criminal activity; breach to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Kaloo Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Kaloo, arraigned in Case Crime No. 698 of 2022 under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, deserves to be released on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶6

Court's answer

Considering the complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and the totality of facts and circumstances, and without commenting on the merits of the case, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Kaloo was directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions that he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or intimidate/pressurize witnesses, shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking adjournments, and shall not indulge in any criminal activity; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail, and identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties is to be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted — Applicant Kaloo sought bail in Case Crime No. 698 of 2022 under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, arising from an F.I.R. alleging that two unknown persons thrashed him and snatched Rs. 1,50,000/- while he was returning home after withdrawing money from the bank. Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R., was apprehended merely on suspicion on 20.10.2022, had no criminal history, was suffering from severe kidney disease, and that the alleged recovery of Rs. 50,400/- was false; the A.G.A. opposed bail contending active participation in the snatching and risk of intimidating prosecution witnesses. The High Court (Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.), considering the complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and totality of facts and circumstances, and without commenting on merits, held it a fit case for bail and allowed the application, directing release on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence, sincere cooperation in trial without adjournments, and abstention from criminal activity, breach of any condition being a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52958 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kaloo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nandan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

By means of the present application, the applicant- Kaloo seeks bail in Case Crime No. 698 of 2022, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Lalitpur, District- Lalitpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the F.I.R. while the applicant was going to his home after withdrawing money from the bank, two unknown persons blocked the way of the applicant, thrashed him and ran away after snatching Rs.1,50,000/belonging to him.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and applicant was apprehended merely on suspicion on 20.10.2022 and has been connected with the present case. It is further submitted that applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case showing recovery of Rs.50,400/- from his possession. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is suffering from severe kidney disease and on the date of the incident, he was going to Indore for his medical treatment. The applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2022 having no criminal history to his credit deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant has actively participated in the snatching of money. The innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage therefore, the

¶10

applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail by pressurizing or intimidating the prosecution witnesses.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed

¶12

Let the applicant- Kaloo , involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶13

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

¶14

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 29.11.2022 Abhishek Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.11.29 17:03:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaloo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaloo v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.

Muzaffar Vs State of U.P.

Yash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Riyaz @ Jhinak Vs State of U.P.