Subedar Ramesh Kumar Rai (Second Bail Appl.) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 361 of 2022

Applicant :- Subedar Ramesh Kumar Rai (Second Bail Appl.) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Bail No. 12246/2021.

¶6

As per the prosecution case at 11 am on 26.10.2021, the applicant was found near a store of Transit Centre in a seriously injured condition and at about 2 PM the deceased was found in a grievously hurt condition near the boundary of nursery and both of them have been taken to command hospital where the deceased scummed to injuries.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he is not named in the F.I.R instead he was found seriously injured 80 feet away from the place of occurrence. In support of that he has produced the site plan, the same is taken on record. He further submits that the case is of circumstantial evidence. He has not committed any offence, no one has seen the incident and except the confessional statement of the applicant, there is no other evidence with the prosecution.

¶8

He further submits that initially the case of the prosecution was as per the recovery memo that a blood stained knife has been recovered from the place of occurrence. Thereafter subsequently it has been on account of re-statement of the present applicant i.e. the second confessional statement a 'khukri' has been introduced. He further submits that the applicant remained admitted in the ICU at ventilator in serious condition for a of 15 days in the command hospital. The applicant has no other criminal history. He is an army personnel and is languishing in jail since 15.06.2021.

¶9

A.G.A. has opposed the bail application submitting that dog of the dog squad after snooping blood stained from the alleged place of occurrence ran towards the room of the applicantaccused where from blood stained knife, towel and other

¶10

evidence were recovered.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant replying this has submitted that he has made specific pleading in para no. 34 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the learned trial court while rejecting the bail has wrongly mentioned that dog of the dog squad ran towards the room of the applicant and the recovery was made from there rather the recovery was made from the room situated in the command hospital itself and the petitioner was found unconscious in a grievously hurt stage 80 feet away from the place of occurrence as per the site plan.

¶12

This pleadings of learned counsel for the applicant could not be denied by the learned A.G.A. as per the written instructions received by him.

¶13

Considering the fact that the applicant is an army personnel, he has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 15.06.2021 and the case is of circumstantial evidence and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Subedar Ramesh Kumar Rai , involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 32/2021, under Sections 302/201 IPC, Police Station - Cantt, District - Lucknow, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(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 court. In case of default of

¶20

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.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

(vi) 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.03.15 11:55:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Subedar Ramesh Kumar Rai (Second Bail Appl.) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subedar Ramesh Kumar Rai (Second Bail Appl.) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Rizwana and Another Vs Saeed Ahmad and Another

Surya Bakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Farooq Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Autar Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udai Bhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another