Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023BAIL/4845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the bail application filed by Pradeep Kumar. The court held that bail is a rule, noting the trial court had not framed charges despite an extended delay, and no material indicated a risk to justice or public interest.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties subject to nineteen conditions including appearance at trial and not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182769

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4845 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Kumar Kushwaha,Raghuraj Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶7

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant is rejected by order dated 29.9.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31858 of 2022.

¶8

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

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶10

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

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Bail Application of the applicant was rejected by order dated 29.9.2022. Subsequently the applicant is appearing before the trial court on various dates, however, till date the charges have not been framed. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the trial court order sheet along with the supplementary affidavit which would indicate that from 3.9.2022 till 14.7.2023 the case is being fixed for framing of the charges, however, till date no charges have been framed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial in the trial court is not being proceeded with and the applicant has been detained in jail. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence under Section 436 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant as per the allegations. He further submits that at the best Section 506 I.P.C. and Section 67-A of the Information and Technology Act would be made out. Both offences are punishable upto seven years. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will

¶12

cooperate in the trial.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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 AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶17

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State 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.

¶18

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 AGA for the State.

¶19

Learned AGA 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.

¶20

It is to be seen that in the present case the allegation against the applicant is of making unlawful obscene video of the victim as well as threatening to burn the house. In the present facts and circumstances of the case Section 436 I.P.C. could not be made out and at this stage, at the best, Section 506 I.P.C. and Section 67-A of the Information and Technology Act would be made out which are punishable upto seven years. The trial court is not proceeding for last one year and till date charges have not been framed against

¶21

the applicant.

¶22

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.

¶23

Let the applicant- Pradeep Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 47 of 2022, under Sections 436, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 67A of Information Technology Act, Police Station Halia, District Mirzapur 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

iii. 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.

¶27

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶28

v. 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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 VMA

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Azad Vs State of U.P.

Nakul Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Chov Singh Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Umardaraj Vs State of U.P.