Allowed

Kanha @ Krishna v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 May 2023BAIL/11160/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Kanha @ Krishna accused under Sections 363 and 368 IPC. The court held that bail is the rule and found no material to show risk of flight or witness tampering, granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including not leaving India or intimidating witnesses.

Kanha @ Krishna Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109076

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11160 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kanha @ Krishna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,Krishn Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

1.Counter affidavit and Supplementary Counter Affidavit has been filed by learned A.G.A., which are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation in the F.I.R. on 19.09.2022 when daughter of the first informant was going to agriculture field to serve food to the informant, then applicant alongwith co-accused-Sunil Kumar have abducted his daughter on the way. Villagers namely Amar Singh and Birendra have seen the alleged incident and when they interfered, the accused persons have assaulted them. It is further submitted that victim is in love with co-accused-Sunil Kumar and she eloped with co-accused Sunil Kumar on her own free will. It is further submitted that after recovery of the victim her statement has been recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that victim and Sunil Kumar were living as husband and wife and role assigned to the applicant was only to take the girl alongwith Sunil Kumar. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement, victim has also made similar allegation against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶11

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶12

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned A.G.A. has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶13

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned A.G.A. that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and 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 bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Kanha @ Krishna involved in Case Crime No. 224 of 2022, under Sections 363, 368 I.P.C., Police StationMahavan, District-Mathura 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 the following conditions:-

¶18

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which

¶22

he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

5. 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.

¶24

6. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

7. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, he shall inform the court concerned about his new residential address in writing.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.5.2023 Vibha

¶28

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanha @ Krishna v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanha @ Krishna 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

Pramod Kumar Vs Smt. Rekha Devi

Chander Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sriniwas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Alok Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Prince @ Daroga Vs State of U.P.