Allowed

Neeraj Rajput v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Feb 2019BAIL/8828/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was allowed. The Single Judge held that the applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who were already enlarged on bail. The applicant was directed to execute a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to the stipulated conditions.

Neeraj Rajput Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8828 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Neeraj Rajput Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Kumar Singh 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 Govind alleging that on 17.9.2018 Surjeet and Anilshot were killed. Surjeet was killed by strangulation and Anil was killed by shot fire. During investigation, the name of Sonu, Raman, Neeraj and Arti was surfaced and it was found that due to illicit relation between Arti and Govind hence this act was done.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Sonu @ Awanish Kumar and Smt. Arti have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 29.1.2019 and 3.1.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4184 of 2019 and 47264 of 2018 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail, hence the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.9.2018 (more than five months) having no criminal history. The applicant is not named in the F.I.R. After two days of the incident the name of the applicant was surfaced after thought and with due legal consultation. Recovery of Rs.1 lac was shown falsely which belongs to the applicant and the applicant was the owner of 'Dhaba'. No identification parade of person or property was conducted. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness against the applicant. There is no eye witness account against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶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 history and also admitted that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused-Sonu @ Awanish Kumar and Smt. Arti, who have been enlarged on bail and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant Neeraj Rajput involved in S.T. No. 06 of 2019, Case Crime No. 396 of 2018, under Section 302, 201, 404, 120B IPC, Police Station-Jahanganj, District-Farrukhabad 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:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 28.2.2019 OP

Neeraj Rajput v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Rajput 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

Jernail Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nizakat Vs State of U.P.

Sharfaraz Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Anand Vs State of U.P.