Allowed

Kishori Lodh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2024BAIL/4198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought bail in an Arms Act case alleging manufacture of arms in open field; court granted bail citing parity with co-accused already released, absence of independent witnesses and no flight-risk apprehension.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including attendance at trial and no tampering with evidence.

Kishori Lodh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30542

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4198 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kishori Lodh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Awasthi,Vipul Kumar Mishra 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 bail application has been moved by the applicant, who has been arraigned in Case Crime No.109 of 2024, under Sections 3/5/25 Arms Act and 3/25 Arms Act, Police StationDhaurahara, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is seeking parity with the co-accused namely Rafiq@Rampat, who has been granted bail by this Court by means of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4058 of 2024.

¶9

It is further submitted that the manner in which the alleged offence is said to have been committed is most improbable. It is alleged that in an open field in full public view, the applicant and the other co-accused is said to have been manufacturing large caches of arms.

¶10

The submission is that the applicant is ready to follow the conditions as prescribed under the law. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influence any witness.

¶11

It is submitted that applicant has criminal history three cases and in all of those case he has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

In these facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant may also be enlarge on bail in the instant case.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the fact that co-accused with similar allegations has already been enlarged on bail.

¶14

Having heard the submissions of the respective parties, apparently the manner in which the allegations have been made in the FIR that large cache of arms was being manufactured in an open field in full public view and considering the quantity of arms recovered without there being any independent witness and considering the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation, and the fact that coaccused with similar allegations has already been enlarged on bail, no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Kishori Lodh involved in the abovementioned case crime 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. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

(v) 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

¶21

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

Order Date :- 18.4.2024 Vipul

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kishori Lodh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishori Lodh 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

Deepak Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Ritesh Chakre vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Binay Kumar Singh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others

Akhilesh @ Kallu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civils Ecrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajbhadur Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Gopi Chandra @ Gopi Chandra Yadav vs Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others