Allowed

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024BAIL/564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 411, 413, 420 IPC for alleged ATM card theft and attempted withdrawal; applicant in custody since September 2023 with 18 prior cases but bail obtained in 17; court granted bail on conditions without commenting on merits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7218

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 564 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Singh,Poornima Raj,Shobhit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

During the course of deliberation learned counsel for the applicant has placed before this Court 17 bail orders passed in favour of the applicant and the same are taken on record.

¶7

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶8

Heard Shri Shobhit Singh, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Amit Kumar for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 350/2023, under Sections 411, 413, 420 IPC, Police Station Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and even if the case of the prosecution is believed the same may not travel beyond 'attempt' as no money is shown to have been withdrawn from ATM by using any ATM Card and it is only on the confessional statement of the applicant with regard to the criminal activities committed by him in past, the FIR has been lodged as some incriminating material has been recovered from his possession.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the incident wherein the applicant has been arrested and incriminating articles are allegedly recovered, he is having criminal history of 18 cases, however, he has been granted bail in all these cases but the applicant could only procure the bail orders with regard to the 17 cases and the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.10 of the bail

¶12

application. All the cases shown as criminal history are triable by the Magistrate. He is in jail in this case since 10.09.2023 and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is habitual offender.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the applicant has been apprehended while he was attempting to withdraw some money from ATM by using some stolen ATM Cards. The defence of the applicant appears to be that even if the case of the prosecution is believed on its face the same may not travel beyond attempt. Some ATMs Cards are shown to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The criminal harlotry of 18 cases has been explained in paragraph 10 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail in this case since 10.09.2023. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Amit Kumar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.1.2024 Muk

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Sec. Home Lko.

Sheela Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Mohd. Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt.

Smt. Seema Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. and Another