Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. C.B.I./a.C.B. Lko

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024BAIL/10069/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court granted bail as the complainant had an ulterior motive and the applicant faced trial before a magistrate with a potential sentence of seven years. The applicant, a government servant, was ordered to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Vinod Kumar was released on bail upon filing a personal bond and two sureties.

Vinod Kumar Vs C.B.I./a.C.B. Lko — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84240

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10069 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Opposite Party :- C.B.I./A.C.B. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Bhola,Amit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 14.6.2024 in R.C. No. 0062024A0015 u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. C.B.I./ A.C.B., Lucknow, District Lucknow. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶8

Sri Krishna has filed supplementary affidavit along with memo / Power, same is taken on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated on affidavit that the complainant in the present case is a person against whom the present applicant has lodged a complaint of which departmental inquiry is going on. The present applicant is serving on the post of 'Postal Assistant' whereas the complainant / Azad Khan is serving on the post of 'Acting Branch Postmaster' concerned. Learned counsel has stated that the complainant having ulterior motive and extraneous design in his mind got the present applicant trapped. In the entire prosecution story there is no material of demand or accepting the bribe, however, the false recovery has been made from the applicant so as to implicate him in the present case. The prosecution case has been lodged under such section which is triable by the Magistrate and punishment is up to 7 years. The entire service record of the applicant has been unblemished and there is no

¶10

complaint of any kind whatsoever against him of indulging in any illegal activity. The applicant is having his permanent address, so there is no flight risk. He being a government servant undertakes that he shall participate in the proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.

¶11

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that complainant in the present case is a person against whom the present applicant has lodged a complaint of which departmental inquiry is going on, in the entire prosecution story there is no material of demand or accepting the bribe, the prosecution case has been lodged under such section which is triable by the Magistrate and punishment is up to 7 years, the entire service record of the applicant has been unblemished and there is no complaint of any kind whatsoever against him of indulging in any illegal activity, applicant is having his permanent address, so there is no flight risk, applicant being a government servant undertook that he shall participate in the proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Vinod Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶20

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 Om

¶22

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vinod Kumar v. C.B.I./a.C.B. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. C.B.I./a.C.B. Lko

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

Munnu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Suman @ Gudiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Dinesh Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Kamar Jahan vs Vice Chanellor Lucknow Univrsity Lko and Another

Lachhuman Singh and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development and 5 Others

Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 4 Others