Pradeep Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And Anr.

Held

The Court held that the applicant, Pradeep Kumar, should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2020 under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The release was to be on his furnishing a personal bond to the satisfaction of the jail authorities. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench in PIL No. 564 of 2020, which addressed the impediments in arranging sureties due to the lockdown. The Court directed that the applicant furnish two sureties within four weeks from the date of lifting the complete lockdown in the district and the resumption of normal court functioning. Failure to do so would result in the cancellation of the bail. The applicant was also directed not to misuse the liberty of bail and to cooperate with the investigation and trial. The order of the High Court was to be considered authentic.

Facts

The applicant, Pradeep Kumar, invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He had been granted bail in Case Crime No. 30 of 2020, under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by an order dated May 22, 2020. However, he could not be released from jail due to his inability to furnish sureties. This inability was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, which had declared Meerut district a "Red Zone," making it difficult to arrange for sureties. The applicant relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning similar difficulties in furnishing sureties during the lockdown.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Pradeep Kumar, should be released on bail despite being unable to furnish sureties as per the original bail order, given the prevailing COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in Meerut district, which is declared a "Red Zone"? Contentions of the Applicant: The applicant argued that the lockdown measures and the "Red Zone" declaration in Meerut prevented him from arranging for sureties, thus hindering his release. He relied on the Division Bench's order in PIL No. 564 of 2020, which permitted the release of accused persons on personal bonds if they were unable to furnish sureties due to the lockdown, provided they undertook to furnish sureties within one month of their release. Contentions of the Opposite Party (State): The judgment records no specific arguments from the State's counsel on this point.