Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2022BAIL/11219/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 394, 302 IPC for a murder case, the High Court granted bail to the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence, non-tampering with witnesses, and attendance for trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant released on personal bond and two local sureties subject to specific conditions of presence and non-interference.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11219 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shravana Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.303 of 2021, under Sections 394, 302, 120-B, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to F.I.R. version Vipin and applicant murdered mother of the informant and stole her jewellery and money. He further submits that from co-accused Vipin money and jewellery was recovered, who has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11007 of 2022, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. He further submits that being distant relative, he has been falsely implicated in the case. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 22 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and, in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. It is next contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2021.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, enlargement of co-accused on bail, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail, let the applicant- Rahul involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicant 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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.6.2022 Jitendra

¶15

Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.06.08 17:41:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Pradhan Valmiki @ Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Udaiveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Smt Poonam Vs State of U.P.

Balram Vs State of U.P.