Harvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10854

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9356 of 2024 Applicant :- Harvesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahesh Kumar Sharma,Ajahar Husain,Sikandar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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. 200 of 2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi.

¶7

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 submits that allegation against the applicant, as per prosecution story, is that he, on the basis of fake document, got appointment in Basic Education Department, whereas there is certain discrepancy in the allegations. He added that the departmental enquiry is held against the applicant and he has been dismissed from the service and recovery proceeding is also initiated against him. He submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and chargesheet has been filed in the matter, therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses and there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future. He also submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.07.2024 having no previous criminal history to his credit 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.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing cheat and fraud, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires

¶10

that there are certain discrepancies in the allegations made in the FIR; the departmental enquiry has already been instituted against the applicant and he has been dismissed from the service and thereafter recovery proceedings are also initiated against him; the chargesheet has been filed, as such there is no chance of tampering the evidences or threatening the witnesses; the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 10.07.2024 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, 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.

¶12

Let the applicant -Harvesh Kumar 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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;

¶15

(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

¶16

(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

¶17

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 :- 18.2.2025 kkv/

¶21

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

Harvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pappu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Sugendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Rahul Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Kumar Alias Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Sarfaraz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Cb.Cid, Lko.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.