Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36035

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4060 of 2024

Applicant :- Surendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent who has filed the counter affidavit which is taken on record.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and 4/10 U.P. Public Examination Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the allegations contained in the FIR it is alleged that on 17.02.2024 at Sunderdas Ramlal Balika Vidyalaya where the Police party was on invigilation duty, they received information that the in place of a candidate of roll no.3202992 some other persons is writing the examination. It was found that Hemant Kumar was the candidate in whose place applicant Surendra Kumar was writing the examination and he is alleged to have taken a sum of Rs.39,000/- from the candidate Hemant Kumar. It is in this view of the matter that Aadhar Card and admit card of candidate Hemant Kumar was recovered from possession of the present applicant.

¶9

The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is falsely implicated. He further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the present applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence, nor does he have any criminal history, and he is in jail since 18.02.2024. It is also pointed out that another coaccused namely Anil Kumar has been enlarged on anticipatory bail on 1.4.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.683 of 2024 and in the aforesaid circumstances the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A., has opposed the bail application and has

¶11

submitted that role of the co-accused Anil Kumar who has been granted anticipatory bail cannot be taken note of as the role of the present applicant is quite different and in such circumstances where the recovery memorandum indicates that from the possession of the solver identity card of the applicant has been recovered. In such circumstances the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material available on record including taking note of the fact that no recovery has been made from the applicant and any alleged recovery from the co-accused, at this stage cannot be taken as admission of guilt, which is yet to be decided during trial and he has been in jail since 18.02.2024.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

It has further been pointed out that one of the co-accused namely Hemant Kumar has been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 18.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4153 of 2024, a copy of the same is provided to the Court for perusal which is taken on record.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Surendra Singh involved in FIR/Case Crime No.93 of 2024, under Sections 419, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and 4/10 U.P. Public Examination Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses 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.

¶19

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Asheesh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. 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

Sanjay Yadav Pradhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Bablu Jaiswal @ Santosh @ Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. of Home and 3 Others

Islamuddin @ Chotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aizaz Khan @ Tinku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kim Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another