Allowed

Lalit Kumar @ Kunne v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2024BAIL/3110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granted bail to Lalit Kumar @ Kunne accused under Sections 34, 307, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The bail was allowed due to the general nature of the role assigned in the FIR, lack of specific identification, and the applicant's undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions regarding appearance and tampering.

Lalit Kumar @ Kunne vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78173

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3110 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lalit Kumar @ Kunne Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Singh,Utkarsh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 577 of 2023, under Sections 34, 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that that no specific role is assigned so far as in narration of the First Information Report is concerned. He submits that even the injured and other witnesses have not assigned the specific role to the accused persons and this cannot be segregated that on whose blow the injured persons have received injuries. He next submits that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained that too is of matrimonial dispute and except apart, there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. He further submits that the chargesheet has been filed in the matter and the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.11.2023 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the First Information Report and even injured as well as other witnesses have named the present applicant and the injured persons have received serious injuries and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant by the injured persons as well as by other witnesses; general role has

¶11

been assigned to all the accused persons and it cannot be ascertained that on whose blow the injured persons have received injuries; the applicant has a case criminal history of matrimonial in nature which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 27.11.2023 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Lalit Kumar @ Kunne , involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of

¶19

the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.11.2024 kkv/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalit Kumar @ Kunne v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar @ Kunne v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Vivek Kempster Vs Shri Arvind Mohan Mishra, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Lakhimpur Kheri

Ranjeet Singh Vs Sri Himanshu Kumar, Prin. Secy. Rural Development U.P. Lko.

Sushil Kumar Ojha Vs Sunil Dobhal, a General Manager / Unit Head, I.T.I., Ltd. Raebareli

Jawaid Anwar Khan Vs Sri Avinash Singh, District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and Others

Rameshwar Singh Vs Mr. Sunil Kumar Dobhaal, Addl. General Manager, Iti Limited, Raebareli

Ram Kumar Vs Mr. Sunil Kumar Dobhaal, Addl. General Manager, Iti Ltd. Rae Bareli