Purnendu Prakhar @ Akhilesh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44771 of 2023 Applicant :- Purnendu Prakhar @ Akhilesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State.

¶2The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 363 of 2023, under Sections 395, 412, 120B and 34 of I.P.C. Police Station-Kotwali, District-Azamgarh during pendency of the trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused, Rajanram and Dineshram in Police custody. The said statements, insofar as, it implicate the applicant are unreliable. The applicant was arrested in Case Crime No. 0385 of 2023 under Sections 307, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Azamgarh and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of Rs. 1,17,200/- has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered amount cannot be connected with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 18 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 16.07.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid facts from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused, Rajanram and Dineshram in Police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant, Purnendu Prakhar @ Akhilesh involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and, iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad