In a bail application regarding alleged offences under IPC and Indian Forest Act, this Single Judge relied on the larger mandate of Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent to grant bail, subject to personal and monetary bonds.
Applicant released on bail to furnish a personal bond, two sureties, and a deposit of Rs. 50,000/-.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40783 of 2018
Applicant :- Raju @ Rajendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Singh Parihar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the police personals have not received injury in the alleged offence hence it is a case of no injury. It is also submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the recovery which has been shown from the possession of the applicant, is planted. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 06.09.2018 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Raju @ Rajendra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 116 of 2018, under Sections 307, 379 and 411 IPC and 26 The Indian Forest Act, Police Station- Milak Khanam, District- Rampur on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain
present personally on each and every date fixed after release.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
(v) The applicant will deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the court concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of his release and the deposit so made by the applicant will be subject to the out come of success or failure in the trial of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in Case Crime No. 116 of 2018.
Whether the applicant satisfies the conditions for bail under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherFollowed¶8
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raju @ Rajendra
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
