Allowed

Rajjan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2019BAIL/2738/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant Rajjan in a criminal case involving serious offences including murder and affray. Several accused had already been granted bail, and the Post Mortem Report indicated a single fatal injury. Specific conditions regarding attendance, absence, and witness intimidation were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to additional conditions regarding attendance and conduct before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 25

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2738 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajjan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. C.P. Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Rajjan involved in Case Crime No. 267 of 2016, under Sections 308, 147, 148, 323/149, 452, 302/149 I.P.C., P.S. Kurara, District Hamirpur.

¶7

It is urged that co-accused Sonu @ Akhilesh and Suresh @ Shiva have been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.06.2018 and 13.08.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21438 of 2018 and 30428 of 2018, respectively; general role has been assigned to all the accused of causing injury by lathi, danda and kulhari; witnesses in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not assigned any specific role to the applicant; postmortem examination report reflects single fatal injury caused on the head of the deceased; no recovery has been made from possession of the applicant; applicant is languishing in jail since 04.12.2016, having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Rajjan be released on bail in the above case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶14

However, It is made clear that in case the applicant indulges in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Kamarjahan

Rajjan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjan 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

Pramod Vs State of U.P.

Mantoo Yadav @ Govardhan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sheru Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Seeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Prasad @ Dhirendra @ Maulana Vs State of U.P.