Allowed

Sunil Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2018CRLA/510/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail appeal against the rejection of an application under Sections 147, 304, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection order, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order rejecting bail and allowed appellant to be released on personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions including no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 510 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Sunil Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Swaroop,Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ikshwaku Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed today by Sri Anil Pathak, learned AGA for the State which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Ikshwaku Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur in Case Crime No.719 of 2017, under Section 147, 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur whereby bail application was rejected.

¶8

According to prosecution case, the FIR was lodged on 05.07.2017 against the four known persons, namely, Sonu, Wakeel, Babloo and Paltu Ram and three to four unknown persons alleging therein that on 04.07.2017 the informant-Ravindra Kumar Gautam was called on 4.7.2017 over telephone in the evening by one Manish, a native of Badaur, saying that there was something to be discussed with Sonu of village-Tarsavan and when he went over to Manish where he found Ravindra, Sandeep, Anil all natives of Badaur and another Shole, a native of Japtapur present besides three other; that even before the party could chalk out a plan to go over to Sonu's place, Sonu, Vakil, Bablu and Paltu Ram, all natives of Tarsavan, assaulted the informant-Ravindra Kumar Gautam and the deceased-Anil both of whom received serious injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that co-accused, namely, Hari Ram vide order dated 04.04.2018 and Sonu, Babloo, Wakeel and Paltu Ram vide order dated 30.04.2018 have been enlarged on bail, as such, the appellant is also entitled for bail as there is no specific role has been assigned by the appellant in the present case; the appellant has not named in the FIR even during recording of statement of informant before the Investigating Officer, he did not disclose the name of the appellant; the appellant/applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; there is no legal evidence against the applicant; there is no eye-witness

¶10

account/independent witness against the appellant; the witnesses who were present at the time of incident have nothing stated against the appellant/applicant; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 15.12.2017 (more than five months); having no criminal history.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that there is no criminal history against appellant and submits that appeal has to be dismissed.

¶12

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.01.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant/applicant Sunil Rajbhar be released on bail involved in Case Crime No.719 of 2017, under Section 147, 304, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of S.C/S.T. Act, Police Station Sarai Khwaja, District Jaunpur on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The appellant/applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The appellant/applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The appellant/applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The appellant/applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the appellant/applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which appellant/applicant is suspected.

¶18

v) The appellant/applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 Nitin Verma

Sunil Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Rajbhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

manoj Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Badan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kaliyan Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mange @ Sanjeev Kumar Savita Vs State of U.P. and Another