Allowed

Kartik @ Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2023BAIL/43908/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant who was falsely implicated after appearing in police custody. The Court noted the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR and lack of role assignment by the injured party, finding no reasonable apprehension of tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties subject to complying with standard bail conditions.

Kartik @ Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:199786

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43908 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kartik @ Vimal Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 120-B IPC, Police Station-Teetaro, District-Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

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. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Himanshu in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant, is unreliable. It is next contended that even in the statement of injured the role of firing has not been assigned to the applicant. As per the medical report, the injured sustained fire arm injury on his right leg. The applicant is in jail since 21.08.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused, Himanshu in police custody. Even, in the statement of injured, the role of firing has not been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper

¶12

with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant, Kartik @ Vimal Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶14

i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and,

¶16

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Lbm/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kartik @ Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik @ Vimal 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

Hari Shanker Singh @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Narad Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Singh Kansana and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Sharma@ Kariya Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Shahil Alam @ Saddam Vs State of U.P.