1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Virendra Kumar @ Bharat Pal vs State Of U.P.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 November, 2019


Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
A Case Crime No.156 of 2019 has been registered against the applicant under Sections 395, 412 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow.
The applicant is claiming parity of bail granted to co-accused persons namely, Raj Rastogi, Madhuri @ Ranjana, Shani Singh and Ajay Valmiki, who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 1.8.2019, 2.8.2019, 15.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 passed in Bail No.6315 of 2019, Bail No.5022 of 2019, Bail No.6992 of 2019 and Bail No.7925 of 2019.
Submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that prosecution has no evidence except the confessional statement as ell as uncorroborated recovery. No test identification parade has been conducted. At one time, from ten accused persons, joint recovery has been shown after six days, which is highly improbable. There is no independent witness of the said recovery. The alleged recovery of articles has not been identified by the prosecution witnesses. There is no evidence collected by the police, which shows that the applicant was involved in the alleged offence of dacoiti. The applicant is in jail since 24.2.2019.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Virendra Kumar @ Bharat Pal 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Gautam
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Virendra Kumar @ Bharat Pal vs State Of U.P.


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

29 November, 2019
  • Irshad Ali