Akhilesh Kumar Verma @ Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42733

Court No. - 2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1302 of 2024

Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Verma @ Akhilesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Prakash Singh,Saurabh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.Case Crime No.38 of 2024 under Sections 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Police Station Rampur District Sitapur.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶10

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the police authorities received a tip that there are some persons who deal with stolen tractors and sell it to other persons. It is in this context that the applicant is said to have been arrested with a tractor which is allegedly stolen. The applicant along with one Lavkush Kumar Gupta co-accused is said to have stated that they steal the tractor and, thereafter, on lesser price sell it to villagers. It is alleged that from their pointing out, several tractors were recovered and as such the name of the applicant has been surfaced on the statement of the co-accused. However, nothing incriminating has been found from the possession of the applicant.

¶11

Submission is that prior to the aforesaid incident the applicant has no criminal history. It is further pointed out that neither the said tractors which have been allegedly recovered would be in the FIR which may have been lodged by the actual owners. There is nothing to implicate the applicant who has been falsely framed in the alleged recovery as the applicant did not succumbed to the illegal demand of police authorities. In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶12

It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further urged that on the basis of the statement of the coaccused, the applicant is under an impending threat of being arrested.

¶13

It is also submitted that the co-accused namely Lavkush Kumar Gupta has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4802 of 2024, a copy of the said bail order has been placed on record as Annexureu No.10.

¶14

Learned AGA, on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the aforesaid the anticipatory bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

Having considered the submissions and considering the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that he has no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Akhilesh Kumar Verma @ Akhilesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶17

(a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶18

(b) that 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;

¶19

(c) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(e) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.6.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Kumar Verma @ Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Kumar Verma @ Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Singh Chandel vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko and 5 Others

Ram Kumar vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Kheri and 4 Others

Smt. Gulab Kali Vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko. Zonal Office Lko.

Shyamanand Chaubey @ S.N. Chaubey vs the State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police Central Bureau Investigation/Acb Lko.

Akhilesh Kumar Verma @ Akhilesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Suraj Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another