Allowed

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024/5980/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under the Arms Act, the High Court examined the improbability of manufacturing arms in an open orchard without public witnesses. Finding no reasonable grounds for apprehending flight or tampering, the Court granted bail with strict conditions regarding court attendance and filing of undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to specific conditions of attendance and undertaking.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51873

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5980 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No. 210 of 2024 under Sections 5/25 of Arms Act relating to P.S. Khairabad, District Sitapur.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated. As per the version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the police personnel got a tip that certain persons were manufacturing country made arms and in case if they are apprehended, the entire cache of arms which was manufactured can be confiscated.

¶9

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that relying upon the aforesaid tip, the police personnel is said to have reached in the open mangoes orchard where it is alleged that the applicant and the another co-accused were manufacturing country made arms.

¶10

It is further alleged that large quantity of arms have been recovered which were being manufactured and some country made arms were still in the process of being manufactured, several other articles were recovered which are used for manufacturing such country made arms. It is stated that it is most improbable that such manufacturing of arms can be made in an open area i.e. mango orchard, in full public gaze.

¶11

It is further urged that while making the aforesaid alleged recovery, neither there was any public witness nor there was any article which can be said to have been recovered from the applicant, however, what has been a mentioned in the recovery memo is all staged.

¶12

It is further stated that the applicant, in paragraph 17 of the main affidavit in support of bail application and paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit, has disclosed his criminal history and there are 11 cases against the applicant. In all the cases, the

¶13

applicant has been enlarged on bail. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, where the applicant has been apprehended and is in Jail since 14.04.2024, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. It is further stated that co-accused Munna @ Muchhai has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4851 of 2024.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the recovery memo would indicate that large cache of arms and other similar articles were recovered and the applicant has also several criminal history and in the aforesaid circumstances, the bail application be rejected.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed that the manner in which the narrative has been stated in the FIR that the applicant and the other co-accused were manufacturing arms in an open mango grove appears to be improbable and despite the large quantity of arms being recovered, there is no public witness to the said incident.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record 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.

¶17

Let the applicant- Shiv Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 210 of 2024 under Sections 5/25 of Arms Act relating to P.S. Khairabad, District Sitapur 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶21

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Ashutosh

¶26

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

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Sharda Devi Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sarojninagar, Lucknow and Others

Babita Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Om Prakash @ Omprakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Radhika vs Bagedan and Others

Govind Prasad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and 6 Others

Kaushal Kishor @ Kaushal and Ors. vs Deputy Director Consolidation Barabanki and Ors.