Allowed

Rajendra Munda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018BAIL/14569/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the single-judge High Court ordered the release of the applicant, Rajendra Munda, on bail pending trial in a terrorism-related case. The trial had been delayed for nearly eight years due to procedural delays and unsummoned witnesses. The court imposed strict conditions including regular police reporting and a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions of conduct and police reporting.

Rajendra Munda Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14569 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Munda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.309 of 2010, under Sections 13,18,20,21,23(2),38,39,40 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 120,121,121-A IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Gorakhpur during the pendency of trial.

¶6

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 5.5.2017 while rejecting it the court below was directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order and further directing the court below not to adjourn the case on flimsy ground and conclude the trial proceeding within the aforesaid period.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and also perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2010, yet the charge was framed by the learned trial court by order dated 6.10.2017 i.e. after lapse of about seven years. Thereafter trial proceeded and almost all the prosecution witnesses were examined. At a belated stage, the prosecution has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning two witnesses, namely, Ram Hit and Viswajeet Srivastava, the investigating officer. The said application was allowed by the learned trial court, but both the prosecution witnesses have not turned up for recording their statement. The applicant is continuously languishing in jail and now almost 8 years have elapsed.

¶9

It is further submitted that Heeramani Devi @ Asha who is the sister of the applicant has also been made an accused in the case by the prosecution with the similar allegation that she was involved in supplying booklets and pamphlets of Communist Party for creating disturbance amongst the citizen of Uttar Pradsh which was disturbing peace, law and order. The applicant in fact had gone to meet his sister who was languishing in jail and on the frivolous accusation of being involved as Maoist Worker he was also apprehended by the police merely on suspicion. It is further submitted that his sister Heeramani Devi @ Asha has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.3.2014. The trial of the applicant's sister is also pending.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case whose life and liberty cannot be slashed on mere suspicion. The applicant who is languishing in jail since 15.10.2010 deserves to be released on bail as there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. In

¶11

case the applicant is enlarged on bail he will cooperate with the trial and will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant contending that the prosecution has collected clinching material against the applicant and the charge sheet has been submitted long back. In case the applicant is allowed to be released on bail, there is every likelihood of his fleeing away from the judicial process and tamper/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant but without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Rajendra Munda involved in aforesaid 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 that :-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

The applicant shall make his presence before the concerned police station on Monday in the first week of every month between 10 to 12 'O' clock till the conclusion of trial to show his conduct and bonafide.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 14.9.2018

¶21

M. Tariq

Rajendra Munda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Munda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Alias Ajay Pal Alias Pintoo Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kranti Kumar Singh @ Biru Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P.