Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 87

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16122 of 2022

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

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard Mr. Sameer Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.0041 of 2021, under Sections 364, 302, 147, 149, 342, 120B, 201, 34, 427, 323 & 506 IPC, Police Station Sarai Aquil, District Kaushambi.

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the impugned first information report and also the bail rejection order.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. During investigation, on the basis of confessional statement of named co-accused person, Wahabuddin Shah, the complicity of the applicant has been shown in the present case. He further submits that neither the applicant is named in the first information report nor any incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the Court to the bail orders passed with regard to co-accused persons, namely, Krishna Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Ram Babu and Ram Prasad @ Audharh passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos.37121, 33850, 38510 and 38756 of 2021. He further submits that the case of the accused has no substantial difference with that of the co-accused who have already been released on bail, and therefore, on principles of parity also the accused should be released on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is having no previous criminal