Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2023BAIL/38243/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal trial under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, allowing release on personal bond and sureties based on parity with co-accused, subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions mandating presence at trial dates and prohibition of adjournment.

Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38243 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Somya Chaturvedi,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.),Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.1175 of 2019, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Varanasi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was got registered by one Ajay Kumar against five named accused persons including the applicant. The next contention is that co-accused Rama Shankar Lal(Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.38842 of 2021) and Bechan Ram (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47167 of 2020) have been admitted on bail by this Court on different occasions, copies of which is produced for perusal. It is next submitted that the case of the applicant stands on identical footing qua the abovesaid co-accused persons and applying the principal of parity, the applicant is also liable to be released on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2019.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and applying the principal of parity, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu Singh , who is involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES

¶12

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.

¶13

(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 IPC.

¶14

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Shafique

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Singh @ P.K. @ Pintu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit K. Ganatra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Durga Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Rajnish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashi Bhushan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Tirth Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others