Akash Chaturvedi v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48970 of 2023 Applicant :- Akash Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh,Ambuj Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶3The 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. 481 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Hari Parvat, District Meerut, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Puneet in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. No recovery of any adverse material has been made from the applicant. Except the statement of co-accused Puneet, there is no cogent evidence against the applicant. Prior to the instant case, the applicant does not have any criminal history, however, after his arrest, he has been implicated in other cases. The applicant is in jail since 16.10.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having heard 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 Puneet in police custody. Except the statement of co-accused Puneet, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. The applicant has remained confined for more than one and half month and after submission of the charge-sheet 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant Akash Chaturvedi, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶8In 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 :- 7.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad