Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11452 of 2022

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

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.145 of 2021 at Police Station-Refinery, DistrictMathura under Sections 395, 397 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 10.05.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Mathura on 15.02.2022.

¶7

Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The applicant was nominated in a statement made by the co-accused before the police authorities. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. No incriminating article which can be linked the applicant to the criminal case has been recovered from him. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶8

Explaining the criminal history of the applicant,

¶9

learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant belongs to an economically weaker section of the society and has become an easy scapegoat for the police authorities who have falsely framed him in a number of cases to burnish their credentials. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in the said cases. The criminal cases do not depict commission of any heinous crime by the applicant and have no bearing on the instant case. The applicant is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶10

Shri Indra Prakash Srivastava, learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, he does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the supplementary affidavit.

¶11

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant-Rahul be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a

¶14

personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.5.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.05.24 10:44:26 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Alias Zaid Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Sirohi Vs State of U.P.