Allowed

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024ABAIL/7611/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail opposition and allowed the application for Vijay Kumar in a case under Sections 380 and 457 IPC. The applicant was released on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions to prevent tampering and ensure appearance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released forthwith on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130833

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7611 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.45 of 2024 (State vs. Arvind and Others) registered under Sections 380 and 457 IPC at Police Station- Doghat, District Baghpat with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not arrested at the spot. His name has come up later on in the statement of the arrested co-accused person Mohit on 21.02.2024. Learned counsel has further stated that the said statement is not admissible in evidence.

¶9

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶10

There is no previous criminal history of the applicant except the two cases foisted on him at the time of nomination in the instant case. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P.

¶13

And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Vijay Kumar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii). that 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;

¶18

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Ravi/-

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar and Another vs State of Up and Another

Adil @ Mohd Adil vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Up

Arvind Kumar Maurya vs State of Up and 2 Others

Kuldip Saraswat vs State of U.P.

Ayyub vs State of Up