Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 May 2024/3151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, the High Court allowed bail for the applicant considering the arguments raised and the fact that a co-accused with a similar role had been granted bail by this court earlier in a related case, despite the FIR being lodged against three persons.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail in the aforementioned FIR on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35329

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3151 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhruvendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.C. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement the on bail in FIR No. 194 of 2023 under Section 302, 120-B I.P.C. Police StationAjgain, District - Unnao.

¶8

3. It is argued that co-accused- Meena having similar role has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 3.4.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13082 of 2023. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant claims parity. He is in jail since 6.8.2023.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. conceded the aforesaid submissions made by the leaned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

5. Considering the arguments raised at bar and coupled with the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged against three persons and one of them has been enlarged on bail, the applicant is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

6. Let the applicant Raj Kumar be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶13

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offences of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶14

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.5.2024 A nuj S ingh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Antim Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Manish Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. Lucknow

Umesh Dikshit vs Smt. Indra Agnihotri and 5 Others

Suraj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home