Allowed

Ravindrapal Singh @ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/38009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant accused under the Electricity Act and IPC. The court acknowledged arguments regarding false implication, planted evidence due to lack of independent witnesses, and jail overcrowding. The bail was allowed subject to standard conditions including a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Ravindrapal Singh @ Rinku Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38009 of 2021 Applicant :- Ravindrapal Singh @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 16 of 2021 at Police Station- Shikohabad, District- Firozabad under Sections 136 of the Electricity Act and Section 427 I.P.C.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (Electricity Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad on 26.07.2021.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 03.06.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Shri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The unexplained delay of five months shows that the FIR has been lodged as an afterthought. The applicant was not named in the FIR. Recovered items relating to power distribution like electricity wires were planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. There is no independent witness or public witness to the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and further contends that the applicant has become a soft target for the police authorities who repeatedly nominated him in number of cases only to burnish their professional credentials. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the

¶9

same have no bearing on the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role with co-accused person and seeks parity in relief with the said co-accused namely Suraj, who has been granted bail by this Court on 01.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38520 of 2021 (Suraj Vs. State of U.P.).

¶10

Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant - Ravindrapal Singh @ Rinku involved in Case Crime No. 16 of 2021 at Police Station- Shikohabad, DistrictFirozabad under Sections 379, 411, 427 I.P.C. and Section 136

¶16

of the Electricity Act, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 Pravin

Ravindrapal Singh @ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindrapal Singh @ Rinku 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

Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Nat @ Kariya @ Jumrati Vs State of U.P.

Rama Nand Sagar @ Tuntun Vs State of U.P.

Tarikat Vs State of U.P. and Another