Allowed

Jattan Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2020BAIL/3908/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Criminal Court No. - 16, Varanasi, disposed of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3908 of 2020 filed by Jattan Rajbhar. The court, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the impugned FIR invoking Section 439 Cr.P.C., allowed the bail application by imposing specific conditions on liberty and sureties.

What did the court decide?

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

Jattan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3908 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jattan Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Rai,Kamal Krishna (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Diwan Saifullah Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.K.Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.S. Khan, learned counsel for the first informant states that he has filed his vakalatnama in registry of this Court on 01.02.2020 and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Jattan Rajbhar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 312 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 34, 120-B, 460 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.

¶7

Learned Senior Advocate argued that the present case is said to have taken on 01.07.2018 at about 02:00 a.m. for which an F.I.R was lodged on 01.07.2018 itself at about 11:45 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station being 10.5 Kms. He argued that no doubt the applicant has been named in the F.I.R but no specific role has been assigned to him and a general role has been assigned to the applicant, Ram Pujan Jaiswal and there were 4 to 5 other unknown persons accompanying them. As per the F.I.R the role assigned to the accused persons is of dragging the deceased Bachanu Jaiswal from the house and then assaulting him with rod and bricks. He further argued that the first informant is not an eye witness to the incident. He has drawn attention of the Court to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant recorded on 02.07.2018 / Annexure- 6 to the affidavit from which he argues that he is not an eye witness. He further draws the attention to the second statement of the first informant recorded on 10.08.2018 / Annexure- 9 to the affidavit in which the role assigned to the applicant is that of dragging out the deceased from the room along with other co-accused persons and subsequently the assault on the deceased has been done by Azad Singh with a danda and Ashok Rajbhar with a rod as a result of which he died. It has further been pointed out that from the pointing out of the applicant a country made pistol has been recovered but the same is of no relevance as there is no

¶8

gun shot injury found on the body of the deceased and as such the said weapon does not in any manner gets connected with the present incident. It has further been stated that the applicant is shown to have been involved in four cases which have been duly explained in paragraph 25 of the affidavit.The applicant is in jail since 08.04.2019.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A and the learned counsel for the first informant argued that the applicant was instrumental in dragging the deceased out from the house along with other accused persons and the two other persons had assaulted him as a result of which he died. The role of the applicant is specific with an intention to commit the murder, he joined hands with other accused persons and dragged the deceased out but the arguments of learned Senior Advocate could not be disputed by both the counsels.

¶10

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant, Jattan Rajbhar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶15

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶16

trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Jattan Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jattan 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

Shakeel Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Payasi Vs State of U.P.

Mauji @ Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.