Allowed

Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2022BAIL/15223/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, the High Court allowed the bail plea for the appellant, who had been in jail since 2014. The court imposed strict conditions regarding witness tampering, attendance, and trial expenses, and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within one year.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail subject to the provision of a personal bond and two sureties, verified by the court, upon furnishing undertakings to comply with specified conditions regarding atten

Raju Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15223 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

This is second bail application of the applicant.

¶7

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court on 19.08.2016 which is not available now.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.09.2014. Only two prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit.

¶9

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Raju, involved in Case Crime No. 435 of 2014, under Sections- 302 IPC and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Harduaganj, District- Aligarh, 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten

¶13

the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) 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.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.9.2022 Rohit

¶22

Digitally signed by ROHIT DAS Date: 2022.09.09 17:12:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Amaraj @ Abhayraj Kharvar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Anshu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Girish Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.