Allowed

Hiresh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2024ABAIL/8046/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted to Hiresh Kumar in a case involving multiple IPC sections. The High Court relied on Sushila Aggarwal, allowing bail subject to bond, surrender of passport, and conditions to ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties, passport surrender, and conditions for court attendance and witness protection.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:169244

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8046 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hiresh Kumar Opposite Party : - State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohan Lal Pandey,Nishi Kant Chaturvedi,Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party : - G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 323, 504, 506, 336, 427, 436, 511 I.P.C. & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Gonda, District- Aligarh till conclusion of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned AGA has filed compliance affidavit in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 10.09.2024. In Para-4 of the compliance affidavit, it has been averred that on 27.10.2021 non-bailable warrant was duly served upon one Nand Kishore, which was issued against the accused-applicant. Despite service of summon, applicant did not appear before trial court. In the statement of Nand Kishore, it has been stated that he runs a provisional store and family members of the applicant often purchase goods from his shop and he informed the family members in regard to summon. From perusal of compliance affidavit, it appears that the applicant has not been properly summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that chargesheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer in the year 2015, therefore, Court has taken cognizance and no notice has been served upon the applicant. Applicant has no criminal history. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98" , the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Hiresh Kumar , who is involved in the aforesaid crime, be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

i. The applicant shall not leave India during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶14

ii. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶15

iii. 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;

¶16

iv. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

v. In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶18

vi. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 SKD

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hiresh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiresh Kumar v. State of U.P.

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

Om Prakash Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Singh Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Babita vs State of U.P.

Abhay Sadh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Paswan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others