Allowed

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023BAIL/17192/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Allowed bail to applicant Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh in a case involving Sections 380, 411, 307, 323, and 504 I.P.C. Court held that criminal history alone is not sufficient to deny bail absent exceptional circumstances, noting no injuries occurred and no T.I.P. was conducted.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to appearing on dates fixed, not tampering with evidence, not pressurizing witnesses, not leaving the district without leave

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153825

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17192 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar,Satyendra Narayan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the informant, and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 375 of 2022, under Sections 380, 411, 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Husainganj, District Fatehpur during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of ornaments of white metal has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The alleged mobile phone does not belong to the applicant. No charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 376 I.P.C. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. In the alleged incident no one has received any injury. It is next contended that co-accused Mukeem has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22324 of 2023, Mukeem v. State of U.P., vide order dated 01.06.2023. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraphs-15 to 20 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 05.01.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶10

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that in the alleged incident no one has received any

¶11

injury. No test identification parade was conducted by the police authorities. No charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 376 I.P.C. The co-accused Mukeem has been granted bail by this Court.

¶12

Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶13

In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para- 30 has observed as under:

¶14

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶15

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶16

Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost seven months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant- Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶18

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶19

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court; and,

¶22

(v) shall appear on 15th of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 SKT/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh 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

Anil @ Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Khushhal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Fatma Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Munabbar Vs State of U.P.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Vs State of U.P.