Allowed

Rahul Goswami v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2020BAIL/5939/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application where Rahul Goswami sought enlargement on bail in a murder case registered via police encounter. The Single Judge granted bail with strict conditions regarding court attendance and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties upon furnishing specific undertakings including court appearance and non-tampering.

Rahul Goswami Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5939 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Goswami Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Rahul Goswami , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 178 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Harraiya, District Basti.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the F.I.R has been lodged against unknown persons. Subsequently, on 11.09.2019 a police encounter took place wherein the applicant was arrested and then he was implicated in the present matter by the police just to show good work. There is no eye witness to the incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The applicant has a criminal history of 03 cases which have been referred to paragraph 12 of the affidavit in which he has been stated to be released on bail. It is further argued that the finding of the court below while rejecting the bail application of the applicant that the applicant has different cases registered against him in different districts is incorrect. The specific denial of the same has been mentioned in paragraph 02 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 11.09.2019.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant has three cases against him but could not dispute the fact that he has been enlarged on bail in the same. Further as per the instructions of paragraph 02 of the supplementary affidavit as received by the learned A.G.A there are no other cases in which the applicant is said to be involved. So far as the involvement of the applicant in the present case is concerned he argued that the applicant was

¶9

arrested by the police on 11.09.2019 wherein he gave his confessional statement on the basis of which he has been made an accused.

¶10

Let the applicant, Rahul Goswami, 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 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 229-A IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶18

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. Order Date :- 3.3.2020 AS Rathor

¶19

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Rahul Goswami v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Goswami 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

Rohit Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Panna Lal @ Pintu @ Pramod Vs State of U.P.

Yashpal Vs State of U.P.

Bhagat Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vijaypal Vs State of U.P.