Allowed

Krishna Kumar Dubey @ Nanhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024BAIL/8509/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by an applicant accused of sending a threatening letter to a judicial officer to deter a trial. Court noted co-accused advocate already bailed, applicant absent from CCTV footage and not matched by forensic handwriting examination, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions on attendance, non-tampering and consequences of default.

Krishna Kumar Dubey @ Nanhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:72556

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8509 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Dubey @ Nanhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Trivedi 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 application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 718 of 2023 under Sections 332, 353, 506, 419, 420, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur.

¶8

The allegation as contained in the First Information Report states that the complainant who is a judicial officer and is posted as Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No. 2, Sitapur (at the relevant time) received a registered postal cover said to have been sent under the signatures of the applicant. An attempt was made to threaten the said Judicial Officer (the complainant) as he was dealing with a case bearing No. 251 of 2016.

¶9

It was alleged in the said postal letter that the complainant had incorrectly and based on surmises had got the statement of the witnesses as evidence recorded and being aggrieved the letter of threat intending to harm the Judicial Officer and his family was made and it was required of the Judicial Officer to lay his hands off the two cases which were pending in his court.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

¶11

It is urged that no evidence worth its name could be gathered by the police, however, in order to show good work, the applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶12

It is further submitted that during investigation, it is alleged that on 24.11.2023, the letter of threat was sent from post office. The CCTV Footage was also taken from the Postal Authority and upon examining the same, it revealed that a person wearing a black coat had registered the said postal cover and thereafter

¶13

upon further investigation, it was found that the said person in the black coat was an Advocate namely Ram Kumar Sharma.

¶14

It is further submitted that the applicant Ram Kumar Sharma and the applicant both were apprehended. As per the recovery memo, a typed letter was recovered from the pocket of the coaccused Ram Kumar Sharma and the other co-accused namely Sri Sharma is said to have confessed that since the Judge was proceeding to conclude the trial wherein the applicant would be convicted, hence, the said letter was sent.

¶15

It is further submitted that the entire investigation revealed the role of the co-accused Ram Kumar Sharma who had plying the entire episode of sending a threatening letter so as to deter the Judge from proceeding with the trial.

¶16

During investigation, the sample handwriting of the applicant and the co-accused was taken for getting the letter forensically examined. Moreover, the charge sheet has been filed against both the applicant and the co-accused Ram Kumar Sharma.

¶17

It is further urged that the co-accused namely Ram Kumar Sharma has already been enlarged on bail by means of order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2721 of 2024. It is thus urged that the applicant be also enlarged on bail.

¶18

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has pointed out that the offence for which the applicant has been apprehended is the serious offence and it amounts to creating obstructions in the administration of justice.

¶19

It is further urged that the applicant has a criminal history which was not initially indicated in the bail application rather came to be stated in the rejoinder affidavit and 17 cases including the present case are against the applicant and in this view of the matter, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶20

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the material on record.

¶21

As far as the criminal history of the applicant is concerned, the applicant in his rejoinder affidavit has indicated that there are 17 cases against him. In majority of the cases, no notice has been issued to the applicant. There are two cases which by efflux of time have been terminated. In two cases, the applicant has been acquitted and in four cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. This fact could not be disputed by the learned A.G.A. that as per the details of the 17 cases mentioned in the

¶22

rejoinder affidavit, in majority, the applicant has yet not been challaned.

¶23

It is also not disputed by the learned A.G.A. that the co-accused Sri Ram Kumar Sharma has been enlarged on bail. It has not been stated by the prosecution that in the CCTV Footage which was recovered from the post office, the applicant was found at the post office rather the allegation that in the CCTV footage, it was the co-accused who had registered the postal cover as well as the fact that forensically it has not been indicated that the letter was in the handwriting of the applicant.

¶24

It is also not disputed that the applicant is illiterate and that the co-accused was defending the applicant in the criminal trial being his counsel.

¶25

Apparently, the co-accused who is a lawyer has been enlarged on bail and primarily the allegations are also against the coaccused. The applicant has pleaded that it was the brainchild of his lawyer to send the letter as he had earlier attempted to get the case transferred from the said court but did not succeed and the applicant being illiterate totally dependent on his counsel for advise.

¶26

The issue as to whether the applicant was responsible for sending the said threatening letter or it was the brainchild of his counsel is a matter to be tested in trial. Moreover, prima facie the fact that the applicant was not seen in the CCTV footage and that the typed copy of the threatening letter was found from the co-accused and also noticing that the applicant has been in Jail since 02.12.2023.

¶27

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.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶29

Let the applicant- Krishna Kumar Dubey @ Nanhu involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the

¶30

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:-

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

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

¶37

O rder Date :- 23.10.2024

¶38

Asheesh

¶39

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

Krishna Kumar Dubey @ Nanhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Kumar Dubey @ Nanhu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Executive Engineer, Provincial P.W.D., Orai, Jalaun vs M/S Shanti Construction Partnership Firm Registered Under Indian Partnership Act

Smt. Nirmala Devi @ Mahura vs Deputy Director of Consolidation,Ayodhya Camp, Ambedkarnagar and 7 Others

Uday Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Suresh Kumar @ Suresh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Lko and 5 Others

Rameshvar Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt. , Lucknow and Others

Munnu Khan Alias Mannu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Govt. Lko. and 3 Others