Allowed

Praveen Kardam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2025BAIL/6341/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held bail granted to applicant Praveen Kardam in Case Crime No. 349 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., subject to conditions of furnishing bond and ensuring cooperation in trial without tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, cooperating in trial, and avoiding further crime.

Praveen Kardam vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47728

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6341 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Praveen Kardam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 349 of 2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-58 NOIDA, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is an investor in the alleged firm. He next submitted that Director of the alleged Firm, namely, Rajesh Khantwal has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32009 of 2020. Further, other co-accused, namely, Puspendra Kumar and Nirdesh Tyagi, have been granted bail by different Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 08.09.2021 and 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 32603 of 2021 and 33885 of 2022. Applicant claims parity with the co-accused persons. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the bail application. Applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of

¶11

the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant- Praveen Kardam , who is involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Aditya

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ADITYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Praveen Kardam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kardam v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Dilshad Alias Dilshan vs State of U.P.

Rishi vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Arif vs State of U.P.

Babar Khan vs State of U.P.

Munchun Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P.