The High Court granted bail to Mahendra Pratap Rai in a murder case where he was not named in the FIR, finding no evidence of last seen and no immediate trial prospect, dismissing arguments on safety conditions.
Applicant released on personal bond with two sureties of like amount.
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. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1434 of 2020
Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Pandey,Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Anand Kumar Pandey,, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicantMahendra Pratap Rai in Case Crime No.227 of 2019, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 34, 216, 201 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Chetganj, District-Varanasi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He was made accused on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused before the police. There upon, the police is stated to have raided the house of the applicant from where certain arms allegedly used in the commission of offence were recovered. He has further argued that till date pistol and some cartridges could not be connected with the present crime. Scooty of co-accused was recovered from his house from which it cannot be said that the applicant was also involved in commission of double murder. There is no evidence even of last seen against the applicant. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of other accused who are named in the F.I.R. There is no early prospect of conclusion of trial. So, the applicant, who is in jail since 30.09.2019, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of
the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant-Mahendra Pratap Rai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions that:-
1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2.The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3.The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the courts below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 17.1.2020 MN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to an accused not named in the FIR but implicated via co-accused confession.
Mahendra Pratap Rai
State of U.P.
Rajul Bhargava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
