Allowed

Rakesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2021BAIL/17706/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court of Allahabad held that the applicants made out a case for bail in a trial involving offences under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC. The Court granted bail subject to strict conditions including personal attendance and a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under strict conditions including personal attendance.

Rakesh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17706 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Daya Shanker Pandey,Neelam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Kumar Solanki

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

This matter is listed for hearing through video conferencing. Link has been sent to the respective learned counsels. Learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State are connected through the link.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicants who are involved in Case Crime No. 142 of 2019, under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station -Rabupura , District- Gautam Budh Nagar, are seeking enlargement on bail during the trial..

¶8

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main role has been assigned to Dharmveer. The role of the applicant is only exhortation. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants have filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15508 of 2019, which was disposed of by Division of this Court with a direction that applicants shall not be arrested till submission of the police report. Thereafter after the applicant had also filed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which has also been disposed of with a direction the applicants may surrender before the court below and may grant bail but the bail application of the applicants was rejected and therefore, this applicants have filed the present bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the cross case the applicant got fire arm injury in which the applicant lodged F.I.R. He further submits that co-accused- Saurav has been exonerated. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 5.2.2021.

¶9

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicants, Rakesh And Brijesh who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANTS 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 APPLICANTS ARE 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 THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.6.2021 Anuj Singh

Rakesh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh and Another 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

Ajay Sharma (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Inamul Vs State of U.P.

Veer Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ramvaran Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.