Allowed

Rajaram v. State of Up Thr. Prin. Sec. Home Govt of Up

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022BAIL/13862/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Misc. Bail Application. The applicant, arrested for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and criminal intimidation, was granted bail after the court found merit in his submissions regarding false implication and lack of connection with the offence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

Rajaram Vs State of Up Thr. Prin. Sec. Home Govt of Up — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13862 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajaram Opposite Party :- State Of Up Thr. Prin. Sec. Home Govt Of Up Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Verma 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. 297 of 2020 at Police Station Thathiya District Kannauj under Sections 306, 504, 506 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 28.02.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj on 10.03.2022.

¶7

Shri Raj Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The deceased was taunted by his family members for the disability he was suffering from. The deceased was a sensitive person, who committed suicide by hanging himself when he could no longer bear the humiliation. The postmortem report opines that the cause of death as asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. No abnormality was detected in the hyoid bone. The postmortem report references ligature marks as the antemortem injuries which are consistent with the hanging. The applicant did not aid

¶8

or abet the suicide. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶9

Learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Let the applicant- Rajaram be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(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

¶17

or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the course of argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the State/prosecution may move an application for cancellation of bail application.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.7.2022 Dhananjai

¶20

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.07.21 10:17:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajaram v. State of Up Thr. Prin. Sec. Home Govt of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram v. State of Up Thr. Prin. Sec. Home Govt of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Khalid Vs State of Up

Babbu @ Jitendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhananjay Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mukesh Kumar @ Betalal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others