Allowed

Arjun Rawat v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2022/2587/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the applicant charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code, noting contradictions in evidence and prior bail to co-accused, granting bail subject to conditions without expressing an opinion on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with specific conditions regarding appearance in court, non-interference with witnesses, and non-committal of f

Arjun Rawat Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2587 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arjun Rawat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neelam Verma,Sanjive Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mayank Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Arjun Rawat under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 817 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Pora, District- Lucknow, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 07.11.2019 has been lodged against the co-accused Gyan Singh Yadav and Karan Sonkar and three unknown persons by brother of the injured stating that on 07.11.2019 at 05:00 PM stating that when his brother Kripa Narayan was standing in Kashiram Colony, at the same time, co-accused Karan Rawat and Gyan Singh Yadav having country made pistols came there and due to old enmity co-accused Gyan Singh Yadav fired upon his brother which hit the abdomen of his brother and fled away from the spot.

¶9

After lodging of the F.I.R., injured was admitted in Trauma Centre and operated on 08.11.2019 and discharged on 09.11.2019. Only one wound of entry of fire arm size 1cm X 1cm is found on the body of injured.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that as per the allegation of F.I.R. co-accused Gyan Singh Yadav fired upon the injured Kripa Narayan and as per the statement of first informant co-accused Karan Rawat has fired upon the injured. As per the statement of injured where he has admitted that the incident took place in a room of his house and co-accused Gyan

¶11

Singh Yadav and Karan Rawat came with three unknown persons in his room and started indiscriminate firing and after that the role has been assigned to the applicant first time. It is further submitted that as per statement of injured he has admitted in the hospital for one day only and except the one injury, no external injury was found on the body of the injured. It is further submitted that co-accused Karan Gihar @ Karan Rawat, Gyan Singh Yadav, Deepak Singh and Mohd. Haroon have been granted bail by Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6458 of 2020, 714 of 2020, 2487 of 2020 & 3418 of 2020 vide order dated 21.09.2020, 06.02.2020, 06.03.2020 & 12.06.2020 respectively.

¶12

It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 18.11.2019 undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it prima-facie appears:

¶15

(a) there is material contradiction with regard to the place of incident;

¶16

(b) except one injury, no other injury is found on the body of the injured;

¶17

¶18

(d) named co-accused Gyan Singh Yadav has been granted bail; and

¶19

(e) the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.11.2019.

¶20

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and

¶21

involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶22

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let applicant, Arjun Rawat be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶24

(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶26

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶29

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat

¶31

such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶32

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶33

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶34

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶35

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.

¶36

Order Date :- 25.8.2022 VPS

¶37

Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH SHARMA Date: 2022.08.29 16:33:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arjun Rawat v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Rawat 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

Keshav Ram Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Nippu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.

Purushottam Kesarwani @ Bauwa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bhupendra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.