Allowed

Ashish Kumar Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024/7692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B I.P.C., the Court allowed the applicant's release on personal bond and two sureties, noting he is an employee, not a director, and has bail in nine other similar cases while co-accused have already secured liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the same amount as the Court is satisfied.

Ashish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78834

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7692 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Bhoopal Singh,Himanshu Mohan,Pawan Kumar,Udai Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bhoopal Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anand Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 945 of 2020, under Section 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 28.11.2020 against 17 persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant had invested some amount with Shine City Developers Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing a plot and the amount had been paid through Anu Verma, Mukund Kumar and Satya Prakash to the company.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was an employee of the company and he has been implicated in ten other cases of similar nature. The applicant has already been granted bail in nine of the cases.

¶10

Learned counsel for the application has submitted that coaccused Mohd. Shakeel has been granted bail by means of an order dated 26.04.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4055 of 2022. It has also been submitted that the co-accused Anoop Singh has already been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 10.10.2023, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12655 of 2022.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

¶13

the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is not alleged to be a Director or other principal officer of the company; that the applicant has been granted bail in nine other cases of similar nature and that two co-accused persons have been granted bail in this case, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.03.2023 and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant-Ashish Kumar Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 27.11.2024 Ram.

¶21

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

Ashish Kumar Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

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

Pinku @ Mustakeem @ Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Salauddin @ Mansuri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

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

Sandeep Maitee vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raju vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Annexe Bhawan Lko.