Allowed

Raghavendra @ Rajuraja v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Allahabad HC5 May 2021CRLA/3563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application under the SC/ST Act, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the appellant on personal bond and sureties subject to specific conditions regarding the pandemic and verification.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the rejection of bail order; released appellant on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each.

Raghavendra @ Rajuraja Vs State of U.P. and Anothers — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3563 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Raghavendra @ Rajuraja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Tripathi,Bhagwan Das,Neelabh Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned AGA for the State through Video Conference and perused the record.

¶7

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant-Raghavendra @ Rajuraja with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge S.C/S.T. Act, 1989/Additional District and Session Judge,Lalitpur in Bail Application No.312 of 2019 (Raghavendra Singh alias Rajuraja Versus State in S.S.T. No.21 of 2019 (State Versus Raghavendra Singh alias Rajuraja and others) arising out of Case Crime No.100 of 2019 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) Da/Dha. of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated due to ulterior motive; that there is no independent witness of the incident which took place in the night. Besides above submissions, the circumstances which according to learned counsel for the applicant led to the false implication of the accused-applicant has also been tried to be touched upon at length; the appellant has been involved in three other criminal cases in which is already on bail and in an offence in Case Crime No.71 of 2004, though he was convicted but he is enlarged on bail; that applicant is in jail since 28.03.2019 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chances of any early conclusion of trial.

¶9

Learned AGA for the State has opposed the submission made on behalf of the appellant.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected.

¶11

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and finally disposed of . The impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant-applicant is set aside .

¶13

Let the above named accused-appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the

¶14

like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following conditions;

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the investigation or trial and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

However, if due to Covind-19 pandemic, the Sub-ordinate Court is under lockdown, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶18

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

¶19

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

It is made clear that in the event the Sub-ordinate Court is functional as usual then the normal procedure/ mode of filing bail bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned will be adopted.

¶21

Needless to note that observation, if any, has come in this order, that is only for the purpose of deciding this appeal and learned Trial Judge will not be influenced in any manner while deciding the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.5.2021 MN/-

Raghavendra @ Rajuraja v. State of U.P. and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra @ Rajuraja v. State of U.P. and Anothers

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

Rameshwar Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Alias Deepak Malik Vs State of U.P.

Babbu @ Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Poonam Vs State of U.P.