Allowed

Rinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019BAIL/14201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 437 Cr.P.C. regarding a murder accusation, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The prosecution case was found based on suspicion with no eye-witnesses, and a Report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication as co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed. The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.

Rinku Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14201 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shanti Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mishra (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons, namely, Rinku, Baniya @ Amit and Krishnapal alleging that on 24.6.2018 the dead body of Prince, aged eight years, was found in the field. On the basis of suspicion F.I.R. was lodged against three accused persons alleging that they killed the deceased. According to postmortem report, eleven injuries were found on the body of the deceased. During investigation, the statement of the informant as well as witnesses were recorded, it was found that F.I.R. was wrongly lodged against all accused persons and deceased was last seen with Virendra, Himanshu, Deepak and Vikas, who are related with Pradhan. Report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was prepared. Later on, the Investigating Officer to save the names of some persons, charge-sheet has been submitted against the named accused persons.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant produced the paper relating to report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. before this Court stating therein that the said report was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur alleging therein that all named accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.6.2918 (more than nine months) having no criminal history. There is no allegation against the applicant only on the basis of suspicion the applicant was named in the F.I.R. There is no eye witness account against the applicant. There is no independent witness against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Co-accused namely Baniya @ Amit has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11075 of 2019, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal

¶9

history.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, 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 opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Rinku involved in S.T. No. 317 of 2018 (State Vs. Rinku & others), Case Crime No. 290 of 2018, under Sections 302, IPC, Police Station-Pilkhuwa, DistrictHapur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 5.4.2019 A. Singh

Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku 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

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.

Nand Kishor Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Firasat Ali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ranviri Devi Vs State of U.P.

Budha Singh @ Atees Kumar Vs State of U.P.