Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. through the Principle Secretary Department Od Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lko

Allahabad HC20 May 2022/4/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder and affray case under sections including 302 IPC. Relying on the principle of parity with co-accused granted bail earlier, the court directed release subject to four judicial bonds and conditions precedent.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to four conditions including no adjournment, presence in court under s. 229-A IPC, and prohibition on leaving India.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. through the Principle Secretary… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through The Principle Secretary Department Of Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶5

At the very outset, Sri R.N.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to inadvertence, he could not indicate Section 307 IPC in the memo of bail application, therefore, he may be permitted to correct such inadvertent mistake.

¶6

On the aforesaid request, Sri R.N.S. Chauhan is permitted to correct the memo of bail application during the course of the day.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 26.08.2021 in Case Crime No.272 of 2021 (Sessions Trial No.1282 of 2021), under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 308, 324, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station – Ajgain, District – Unnao.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. The applicant has no previous criminal history and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He has further submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Mithan Rawat and Aman, who have been assigned the similar role, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 07.04.2022 & 11.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.3 of 2022 & 4661 of 2022 respectively. He also submits that since similar role has been assigned to the applicant and case of the applicant is in parity with the co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. He has further submitted that charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering the evidence. He undertakes that the applicant shall co-operate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order.

¶9

Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the fact that co-accused persons, namely, Mithan Rawat and Aman having similar role have been granted bail, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, let applicant - Raj Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 RBS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by RAM BIR SINGH Date: 2022.05.20 19:27:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. through the Principle Secretary Department Od Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. through the Principle Secretary Department Od Home, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lko

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

Ramu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Home Deptt. Lko.

Ashraf Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Phoola Devi Alias Priyanka Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Chandani and another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lucknow

Bankey Lal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Dept of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Abhishek Singh S/O Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others