Allowed

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023ABAIL/12423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing an anticipatory bail application filed by a laborer not named in the FIR, the court granted bail on the ground of parity with a co-accused. The order imposes standard bail conditions regarding interference, witness tampering, and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216995

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12423 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Gousia Anjum Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.10 of 2020, registered under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Anoop Shahar, District- Bulandshahr with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The applicant is a laborer in the said company. Learned counsel has further stated that the named co-accused person, Santosh Sharma has already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.6.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2960 of 2020. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement

¶12

passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Praveen Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii). that 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Vikas

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Puran Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Juvenile A.B. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.