Allowed

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024BAIL/10750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court at Allahabad allowed the accused to be released on bail by the trial court solely on the grounds of parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail, without expressing an independent opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in the main case subject to furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Suraj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70092

¶2

Court No. - 31

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10750 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhat Kumar Mishra,Brijendra Pratap Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2024 under sections 467, 468, 471, 34, 120-B, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

¶10

It is alleged in the prosecution case that the garage was given by the complainant to the applicant in the year 2016-17 which was holding by his manager Pranjali Mishra for the last two years. It is alleged that when the complainant demands rent from both of them, they hurled abuses and also drive the complainant away by pelting bricks and stones. They have further threatened the complainant not to come to the garage. They have illegally encroached the garage of the complainant.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The offences are triable by magistrate. The co-accused Pranjali Mishra has been granted interim protection vide order dated 23.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1911 of 2024. Another co-accused Salil Srivastava has been granted regular bail vide order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8430 of

¶12

¶13

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that Pranjali Mishra was purchaser and applicant is a seller. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of Pranjali Mishra (supra) as well as Salil Srivastava (supra). He submits that the applicant is in jail since 21.06.2024 having no criminal history.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however, does not dispute that it is a case of parity.

¶15

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.06.2024 having no criminal history as also the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail orders of aforesaid co-accused persons, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of parity.

¶17

Let the applicant Suraj Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) 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

¶21

the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iv) 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.

¶23

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

¶24

(vi) 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 17.10.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ankur Saroj @ Habbu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Ankur Saroj @ Habbu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Sahil Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Lalit Kumar Tiwari and Another vs NTPC Ltd. Thru. Cmd New Delhi and 2 Others