Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024/4263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4263 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed the bail plea of Rahul Kumar accused under Sections 419, 420, 467, etc., IPC, imposing standard conditions regarding court attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and prohibition of inducement.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties; conditions imposed on court attendance, non-interference with witnesses, and conduct during trial.

Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32179

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4263 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh 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.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.45 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 IPC, Police Station Kotwail Nagar, District Gonda during trial.

¶8

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

¶9

It is further submitted that as per the allegations contained in the FIR the applicant is said to have been appearing in the examination on behalf of co-accused Uday Shankar Sharma.

¶10

It has been further pointed out that in so far as the co-accused is concerned, he was already granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 14.03.2024 by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application no.540 of 2024.

¶11

It has further been submitted that the applicant is innocent and the allegation that the co-accused had paid sum of Rs.35,000/to the applicant has also not been found plausible.

¶12

It is further urged that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 21.01.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and

¶15

circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant 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.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant -Rahul Kumar involved in the abovementioned case crime 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. 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) 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.

¶21

(iv) 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.

¶22

(v) 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

¶23

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 Harshita

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sajid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dheeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director

Nishant Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko