Allahabad High Court
Kuldeep Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 26 February, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- BAIL No. - 10918 of 2018 Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Veer Bhanu Singh,Pratap Singh,Umesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Chaturvedi,Rohit Kumar Verma Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The charge-sheet has been submitted on 16.01.2019. The applicant is only an agent to deliver ATM Machine to the concerned Banks. The applicant is in jail since22.09.2018. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 15 of the affidavit and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer and submitted that the applicant in collusion with the other co-accused Babu Ram committed fraud and embezzled more than Rs.78/- lakhs and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail but he has not contradicted the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the allegations made in the FIR as well as the period in which the applicant is languishing in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of the view that it is fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Kuldeep Kumar Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No.0366 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(1) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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;
(2) 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;
(3). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.
(4) 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 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 his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.2.2020 akverma