Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Arvind Kumar vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 October, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37815 of 2018 Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Singh Kushwaha,Chandan Singh,Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; no explanation of delay of 2 days has been given in lodging the F.I.R.; the applicant was taken in police custody on 31.05.2018 at 11:00 p.m. and was tortured for a long time without judicial remand; no enquiry of physical inspection was made of stock store or stock register and suddenly the place was raided on 31.05.2018 at 11:00 p.m., showing the incident at another place, which was not connected with P.D.S. Godam and intentionally a false F.I.R. has been lodged in collusion with Police of Jewar; it was further argued that the applicant was living with his family as tenant in the upper floor of Rice Mill in Jewar whereon 31.05.2018 at 7 p.m., S.D.M. Jewar came and the applicant also came to meet him and at that time the said S.D.M. demanded huge sum of rupees as bribe and as the same could not be arranged, he has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant is absolutely innocent as during his entire service period no charge-sheet has ever been filed against him; the applicant is in jail since 02.06.2018.
Learned counsel A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awarded to the appellant, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let the applicant Arvind Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 451 of 2018, under Sections 379, 409, 411, 420, 34 I.P.C., U/s 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act and U/s 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P.S.- Jewar, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. One Lakh with two sureties (out of which one should a family member) to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(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.
(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.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail 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.
(iv) 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 applicants are 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.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. within a further period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 26.10.2018 JK Yadav
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 vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 October, 2018
Judges
  • Ramesh Sinha
Advocates
  • Udai Singh Kushwaha Chandan Singh Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal