Allowed

Ved Prakash @ Kunja v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2024BAIL/1652/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was decided by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. The court granted bail to the applicant, Ved Prakash, in a theft case, noting no risk of flight or witness tampering, and imposed standard conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to conditions for court attendance.

Ved Prakash @ Kunja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40363

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1652 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ved Prakash @ Kunja Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Azmi Yousuf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.0604 of 2023 under Sections 457, 380, 411, 413 IPC, Police Station Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri during trial.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned FIR has been lodged against unknown persons.

¶10

As per the content of the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant had recently inaugurated his shop of jewelry under the name of Raj Jeweller on 16.10.2023 and in the intervening night of 18.10.2023 and 19.10.2023, it is alleged that some criminal persons had entered in the shop and took away the ornaments of gold and silver as well as other valued items. It is further stated that when the complainant reached his shop on 19.10.2023 at around 9.00 a.m., he became aware of the theft. It is also stated that there was foot print of the alleged thieves from roof to shop.

¶11

It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the applicant along with other co-accused is said to have been apprehended along with valuable items of gold which were found on the person of the applicant, it is submitted that the alleged recovery is false. No independent witness is present. It is further pointed out that the applicant who otherwise does not have any criminal is in jail since 07.11.2023. It is also pointed out that even during investigation, nothing could be found

¶12

neither from the CCTV footage nor any investigation was done regarding the theft and certain footprint which were found as mentioned in the FIR and only to show good work, the applicant has been apprehended.

¶13

It is submitted that the co-accused Manohar @ Nanhu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4823 of 2024.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant was caught with the items stolen, however, the fact is that no verification was made through CCTV and nor any investigation has been done regarding the alleged footprint which was said to be there at the place of occurrence.

¶15

It is also urged that the applicant has no criminal history and has been in jail since 07.11.2023.. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant Ved Prakash @ Kunja involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶18

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ved Prakash @ Kunja v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash @ Kunja v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Vaheedul Nisha Vs F.T.C (S.D.) Fast Track Court (S.D.) Dist. Gonda and 2 Others

Om Prakash Vs Addl. Sub Divisional Officer Mandal Ayodhya, Tahsil Sader, Ayodhya and Others

Royalgolf Link City Projects Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Auth. Signatory Virendra Singh Vs Real Estate Regulatory Authority Niyojan Sansthan Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and 3 Others

Smt. Maya Devi and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Court 13 Barabanki and 3 Others

Raees Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Jhinka Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others