Pravesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the allegation against the applicant is that he by impostering the original tenure holder, has got executed a sale deed, though there is no cogent piece of evidence against him. He next added that the sale deed itself, is evident to show that no sale consideration has ever been given and added that the present applicant has been made an escape goat and infact no such offence has ever been committed. He submits that the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 17-08-2022 and there is no possibility that the trial would be concluded in near future. He also argued that the applicant has three cases criminal history, which has been explained and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17-08-2022; criminal history of the applicant has been explained; the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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. Let the applicant-Pravesh 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, investigation or trial; or otherwise during the (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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (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.; (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 proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. 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. 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. Order Date :- 25.6.2025 AKS ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench