Allowed

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Sectt. Lucknow

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2024BAIL/1590/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal matter under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986, holding that since similarly situated co-accused were released and statutory conditions were met, bail should be enlarged by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by the trial court on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20473

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1590 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Sectt. Lucknow

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar,Kuldeep Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime/FIR No.369 of 2022, under Sections 3 (1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Masauli, District-Barabanki, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case and in jail since 07.04.2022. He further submitted that 22 cases have been shown in the gang chart against the applicant and in all 22 case, he is on bail. He further submitted that co-accused, namely, Gunjan Verma and Rajendra Prasad Mishra, having identical role, have already been granted bail by this Court, vide orders dated 29.02.2024 and 06.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.1218/2024 and 298/2024 respectively. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed before this Court a photocopy of bail order of co-accused, namely, Gunjan Verma and Rajendra Prasad Mishra is taken on record.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but has fairly conceded that similarly situated coaccused Gunjan Verma and Rajendra Prasad Mishra have already been granted bail.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for

¶14

parties, material available on record, bail orders of co-accused as well as totality of fact and circumstances, this Court finds that condition of Section 19 (4) of the Act are properly complied with and it is also evident that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma, who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶19

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶20

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 V. Sinha

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Sectt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Sectt. Lucknow

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

Smt. Nirmala Devi vs Abhinav Kanaujia, S.D.M., Gauriganj, Amethi

Amreen Fatima and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Brijesh Kumar Yadav (in Person) and Others vs Savita Yadav, Sub Divisional Magistrate / Competent Authority, Musafirkhana Amethi

Krishna Kumar @ Karodi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Dheeraj @ Manav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Deepak @ Satyendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others