Allowed

Raju v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC25 Oct 2021CRLA/850/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2021, the Single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the bail application of the Appellant, Raju. The court held that the complicity of the accused was not established and he was falsely implicated without proof of receiving alleged money.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail is set aside; the accused-appellant is released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties.

Raju Vs State of Up and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 850 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Raju Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Tripathi,Atul Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 28.01.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Bareilly in Case Crime No. 659 of 2019, under Sections - 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3(1) r, 3(1) s & 3(2) Va SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Bareilly.

¶7

Appellant claims to have been falsely implicated in this case on several counts; prime being that in this case, so far as the allegations are concerned, on its face value, the appellant is not the beneficiary of the money in question. Rs. 10 lakhs have been deposited in the relevant bank account of co-accusedSabir Ali. However, vague allegations have been made that Rs. 3 lakhs were given in cash to the appellant and one another coaccused Rakesh Sharma, whereas there is no proof of the same that before whom, this money was given. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of their absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 07.08.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶9

I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.

¶10

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

¶11

Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence,

¶12

complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.01.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶14

Let the accused-appellant - Raju involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.10.2021 S Rawat

Raju v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Yadav @ Ramchandar Vs State of U.P.

Anshu Khan @ Dabbu Vs State of U.P.

Aman Kashyap Vs State of U.P.and Another

Raj Bihari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Azam Vs State of U P

Lalluram Verma Vs State of u.p