Allowed

Nanhkau @ Rajkumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024BAIL/7801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of robbery and cheque-related offenses. The bail was granted considering the applicant's lack of criminal history, claim of no deliberate intent to flee, and the requirements of Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions ensuring presence in court and non-interference with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70706

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7801 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nanhkau @ Rajkumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Trivedi 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 S.T. No. 534 of 2016, Case Crime No. 42 of 2016, under Sections 396, 412 IPC, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was initially enlarged on bail on 09th of November, 2016 and due to certain reason, he could not appear and thereafter he was arrested and he was enlarged on bail. He next added that for livelihood, he went to other city from his place and due to miscommunication between his counsel and the applicant, he could not appear on the date fixed by the trial court, though the same is not deliberate. He next submits that the applicant shall remain present on each and every date before the trial court. He also added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and in the instant matter, he was implicated on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused. There is no direct evidence against him. 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 repeatedly absconding from proceeding of the trial court and, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.03.2024 and he has no previous criminal history. This Court has taken note of fact that the applicant is a labour and as per the statement of learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant went away for livelihood to other city and due to miscommunication between the counsel and the applicant, he could not appear before the trial court on

¶11

due date. The applicant has also undertaken that he will always remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court and would never jump the conditions of the trial court.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels 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- Nanhkau @ Rajkumar 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 always remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court, failing which, it is liberty to the trial court to proceed further.

¶15

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

¶16

(3) 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;

¶17

(4) 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

¶18

(5) 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 kkv/

¶23

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

Nanhkau @ Rajkumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhkau @ Rajkumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anand Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Arpit Pandey @ Ganesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lucknow

Shivam Singh @ Aryan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Govt. Lko

Sadan Kumar @ Chandan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Neelam Gond vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others