Allowed

Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024BAIL/6586/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Sections 392 and 411 IPC for robbery/stolen property offences. The applicant was connected to the case only through a confessional statement, with no cogent evidence against him, and had a 12-case criminal history explained in the application.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83309

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6586 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and 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. 0040 of 2024, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next submits that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant to connect him in the matter. He also added that, on the basis of confessional statement, the police has connected him in this matter. He next added that the applicant has 12 cases criminal history which has been explained in paragraph 12 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.02.2024 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 has submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and he has criminal history of 12 cases and as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant to connect in this matter; the applicant has been connected in this matter by the police on the basis of his confessional statement; the applicant has 12 cases criminal history which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 29.02.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties,

¶12

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- Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba 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 the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 kkv/

¶21

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

Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Intezar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Jeeshan Ahmad @ Ahmad Kalam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Kuldeep Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.