Allowed

Rahul Kumar v. State of Up

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024ABAIL/1355/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J. enlarged the applicant on anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. Application No. 1355 of 2024, confirming the earlier interim order. The applicant is to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties during the pendency of trial subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail during pendency of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.

Rahul Kumar vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:139078

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1355 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajneesh Kumar Singh,Vinay Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Case called out. Counsel for the informant is not present.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶8

The application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 216 of 2023, under Sections 304, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Bankata, District Deoria.

¶9

The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.2.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:

¶10

"1. List revised.

¶11

2. Heard Sri Brij Bhushan Prasad Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajneesh Kumar Singh and Sri Vijay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsels for the first informant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the case of the prosecution is of the applicant switching on the power line due to which Deepak Singh, the son of the first informant got electrocuted while working on the transformer. It is argued that investigation in the present matter is going on and has not yet concluded, para 3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.2.2024 has been placed before the Court. It is argued that the incident is of 10.12.2023 but the FIR has been lodged on 19.12.2023 which is after nine days of the incident for which there is no plausible explanation. It is argued that the applicant had no motive to commit the said offence. The applicant has no criminal history, para 17 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application has been placed before the Court.

¶13

4. Matter requires consideration.

¶14

5. Learned counsel for the first informant prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State may also file counter affidavit in the said period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter.

¶15

6. List this case on 19.04.2024.

¶16

7. Till the next date of listing or till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court which ever is earlier, in the event of arrest of the applicant-Rahul Kumar, involved in Case Crime No.216 of 2023, under Sections 304, 120-B IPC, Police Station Bankata, District Deoria, he shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

(ii) 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;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶20

8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶22

10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order."

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant on 16.5.2024. The applicant has been summoned by the court concerned to face trial. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶24

Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order dated 23.2.2024, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and in particular the fact that no custodial interrogation is required, the fact that no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of bail has been pointed out by the learned AGA and no adverse material has been produced by the learned AGA, which may warrant any modification in the earlier order dated 23.2.2024, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶26

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Rahul Kumar , involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial , on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶28

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶30

In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶31

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶32

The application stands disposed of.

¶33

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 S.S.

¶34

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Kumar v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. State of Up

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

Pravin Brahmdeo Pandey vs State of Up and Another

Shweta Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others.

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghvendra Dixit vs State of Up and Another

Munne Khan and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Nishan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another