Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47968

Court No. - 4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5831 of 2024

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 28.03.2024 in Case Crime No.299 of 2022, under Section 409 IPC and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station – Mailani, District – Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Further, the present applicant was serving on the post of Driver but he has been wrongly implicated saying him as a Godown In-charge. He has drawn attention of this Court towards para-33 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein he has stated that the applicant has invested the savings of his entire life and get constructed two small houses of EWS category. It is further submitted that applicant was neither absconded nor tried to tamper the prosecution witnesses rather he was suffering from illness and his continuous treatment was going on in different Hospitals at Lucknow. It is further submitted that during this period, neither non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant nor any proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C was initiated against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is an old aged person, aged about 61 years and he is a family man, as such, there is no chance of absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The photocopy of medical prescriptions of applicant has been annexed as Annexure No.RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Further submission is that co-accused Ram Shankar, having similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1723 of 2022, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail. Further, if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that neither non bailable warrant was issued against the applicant nor any proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C was initiated against the applicant since 2022; the applicant was serving on the post of Driver but he has been implicated saying him as a Godown In-charge; the applicant is an old aged person of 61 years; co-accused Ram Shankar, having similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant- Dinesh Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶20

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 RBS/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. 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

Kailash Chandra Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Gaurav Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow

Ratnakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and Others

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Anjali Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Excise Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs Consolidation Commissioner Lko. and 4 Others