Allowed

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023BAIL/33932/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail applicant argued for release on parity grounds as a co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail. The court, noting no incriminating evidence against him, allowed bail with strict conditions to prevent misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with condition of two sureties and a personal bond upon furnishing undertaking not to misuse liberty.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172812

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33932 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present first bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 292 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to malafide intentions. It is submitted that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant neither the applicant is the beneficiary. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history apart from this case. It is next contended that similarly situated co-accused person, Mukesh Kumar, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32439 of 2023. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.06.2023 having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that since the role of the present applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who has already been

¶9

enlarged on bail, present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the

¶10

ground of parity and if he is granted the liberty of bail he will not misuse the same and he is ready to furnish his sufficient sureties, bonds and personal bonds.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not controvert the fact that identically situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Considering the fact that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, applicant has no criminal history, applicant is not the beneficiary coupled with the fact that identically situated co-accused has been enlarged on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, accused-applicant is liable to be released on bail.

¶13

Let applicant Neeraj Kumar be released on bail in the above case crime number and on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian

¶16

Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking from the sureties that the properties (movable/immovable) which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them till the conclusion of trial.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he will not change his address without prior intimation to the trial court concerned.

¶21

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 28.8.2023 Karan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iiu@ Afzal Vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Kumari Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Joheb Pathan Vs State of U.P.