Allowed

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2020BAIL/6501/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows bail application No. 6501 of 2020 for applicant Rajendra accused of murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The High Court, considering the applicant's cooperation, lack of prior record, and the extraordinary situation due to the Covid-19 lockdown in Uttar Pradesh, orders his release on a personal bond with two heavy sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding trial atten

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Rajendra on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties of a like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6501 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Laxmi Kant Bhatt Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Rajendra with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 278 of 2019, under Sections - 302 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Ichauli, District - Meerut , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) against FIR lodged on 01.06.2019, the applicant is in confinement since 04.06.2019;

¶9

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;

¶10

(iii) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶11

(iv) chargesheet has already been submitted, however, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial;

¶12

(v) without drawing any inference as to fact and without suggesting any such inference, on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted that though the FIR is claimed to have been lodged by the police on the information received from certain villagers, during the course of investigation, not a single statement of any villager/neighbour was recorded. The applicant has been proceeded solely on the confessional statement and on the planted recovery of knife. Then, referring to the panchayatnama, it has been submitted that the relative Sonu was present at that time. Thus, the FIR allegation that the family members of the deceased had done him to death and thereafter run away is plainly false. In short, it has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in a case where actual assailants are still not known. Three other accused have already been enlarged on bail. In similar circumstances, Dayaram, Rahul and Rajni, who were also family members of the deceased, have been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail

¶13

Application Nos. 47607 of 2019, 57217 of 2019 and 54965 of 2019 vide orders dated 13.11.2019, 3.1.2020 and 13.12.2019 respectively;

¶14

(vi) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Rajendra involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶24

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶25

It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶26

Order Date :- 21.9.2020 Prakhar

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Pundir Vs Chokhe Singh and 2 Others

Chandra Shekhar Vs Member Board of Revenue and 5 Others

Ram Ratan @ Babban Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Robin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Patariya @ Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Hardayal @ Gande Giri Vs State of U.P.