Allowed

Alok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2024/4455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application filed by Alok Kumar in a case under u/s 120B IPC and u/s 7 PCA. The court held the applicant is entitled to bail without expressing an opinion on merits, subject to conditions ensuring attendance and preventing tampering.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail furnished by personal bond with two reliable sureties each.

Alok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40620

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4455 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Alok Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin.Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shanker,Pranjal Krishna,Rakesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶8

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime/F.I.R. No. RC0062024A0009, under Section 120B I.P.C. & Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI, ACB, Lucknow, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

It is submitted that as per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged by the complainant that the applicant had demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as illegal gratification for providing undue benefit to the complainant. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is urged that the entire premise upon which the FIR has been lodged, is apparently frivolous and concocted.

¶10

It is submitted that the complainant was issued a notice under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of certain cash deposits found in her account. In furtherance thereof, the complainant had filed her reply stating that the applicant had passed the order dated 28.02.2024 and that too with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that once the said order has been passed, there was no occasion for the applicant to have demanded any amount from the complainant and the complaint made by the complainant dated 14.3.2024 automatically loses its relevance insofar as the applicant is concerned.

¶11

It is further submitted that even otherwise the allegation is primarily against the co-accused who is the Steno of the applicant and the alleged conversation which has been recorded, is between the complainant and the co-accused Steno and not with the applicant. Thus, the allegations against the applicant are completely unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the applicant is a reputed government servant and has deep roots in the society. He has no previous criminal history and has been in jail since 15.3.2024. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that the present applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶12

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the evidence. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not controvert the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also 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. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Alok Kumar involved in the abovementioned case 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:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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

¶18

Code.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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 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 :- 27.5.2024

¶24

Harshita

¶25

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

Alok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home and Another

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

Anish @ Gantha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Kashif Vs U.O.I. Deptt. of Air Customs C.C.S.I. Airport Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer

Meraj @ Miraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Siya Ram and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Ved Prakash @ Kunja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Peer Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.