Allowed

Anish @ Gantha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC25 May 2024BAIL/5729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow allowed the bail application of Anish @ Gantha accused in a theft and forgery case. Finding no apprehension of fleeing or tampering with evidence and noting no incriminating recovery from the applicant, the court granted bail with personal bonds and strict conditions to appear in court and not influence witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond with two sureties; conditions imposed to ensure attendance and prevent witness tampering.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39836

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5729 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anish @ Gantha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Kumar Yadav 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

This bail application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, under Sections 395/397/201/120-B I.P.C. Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow, 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

It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant against unknown persons alleging therein that on 27.1.2024 at around 01.00 am, 8-10 persons trespassed Balaji Transformers Factory situate at G-26, Chinhat, Deva Road and at gunpoint, they locked the factory staff in the room. Thereafter, they looted around 6500 kg of copper coil, relay gas cylinder etc. and loaded it on the truck and absconded. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the recovery was effected on 5.1.2024. However, there is no recovery of anything incriminating from the possession of the applicant.

¶10

It has further been submitted that one of the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3672 of 2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 with the bail application. It is further urged that the applicant does not have any criminal history and he has been in jail since 11.04.2024.

¶11

It is also urged that 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.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Anish @ Gantha 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 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.

¶21

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

¶22

O rder Date :- 25.5.2024 Asheesh

¶23

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

Anish @ Gantha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish @ Gantha v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Dr. Swati Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Baliram vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue and others

Smt. Gyanwati and Another vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Udhaw Singh vs Enforcement Directorate Thru. Assistant Director, Lko.

Ambika Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Hathaode @ Ajmat Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.