Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Arvind Kumar @ Nain vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 May, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8490 of 2021 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar @ Nain Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shishir Tandon,Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.
Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, Arind Kumar @ Nain, in Case Crime No. 611 of 2020 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 34 I.P.C.
and 3, 6, 9 and 10 of the U.P. Public Examinations Act, 1998, police station Sector 58 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that co-accused Ravi Kumar, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 17.03.2021 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3479 of 2021. The case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does not dispute the claim of parity.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till cognizance is taken by the Court on the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-
1. The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish their address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.
2. The applicants shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial/investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
3. The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;
4. The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court/Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case they have no passports, they will file their affidavits before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.
5. That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
6. The applicants shall maintain law and order.
7. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicants.
8. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.
9. The applicants 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, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
11. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
12. The applicants are warned not to get themselves implicated in any crime and should keep distance from the informant and not to misuse the liberty granted hereby. Any misuse of liberty granted by this Court would be viewed seriously against the applicants in further proceedings.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
Order Date :- 26.5.2021 Shiraz
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Arvind Kumar @ Nain vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 May, 2021
Judges
  • Siddharth
Advocates
  • Shishir Tandon Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi Senior Adv