Allowed

Govind Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2022BAIL/18869/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application in a kidnapping case under Section 364-A IPC. The court relied on the fact that no weapon was found, the victim was recovered from an open space without being in a bonded state, and a co-accused had been granted bail previously.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering and witness influence.

Govind Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18869 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Govind Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan Dubey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2021, under Section 364-A IPC, Police Station Ikdil, District Etawah during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 16.11.2021 at 22:05 hours alleging that the applicant had called the informant's father on the pretext of buying a Buffalo; that his father had gone alongwith an acquaintance Umesh Yadav on 15.11.2021 at about 8:30 hours and the applicant alongwith 3-4 persons had abducted the informant's father and asked Umesh Yadav to covey that they will release the informant's father upon receiving Rs. 2,00,000/and two rings.

¶8

The informant's father is said to have been recovered on 17.11.2021 at 4:25 hours while he was with the applicant. As per the prosecution case, the alleged abducted person stated that he had been made to walk for about 15 k.m. with his eyes blind folded. A mobile phone and Rs. 220/- are said to have been recovered from the applicant.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and also that he has no criminal history, yet the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2021. The affidavit contains an undertaking that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that no weapon etc. has been recovered and the alleged victim was not found in a bonded state.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted

¶12

that the statement of the alleged victim that he had been made to walk for about 15 k.m. after blind folding his eyes and thereafter, he returned within two days on his own, indicates that a false story has been set up by the prosecution. He has submitted that the co-accused Jitendra Pal @ Lambu has already been enlarged on bail by means of an order dated 01.08.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18786 of 2022.

¶13

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that no weapon has been recovered from the applicant and the victim has been recovered from an open space and he was not kept in a bonded state, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant Govind Rajpoot be released on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2021, under Section 364-A IPC, Police Station Ikdil, District Etawah on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 17.8.2022 Jaswant

¶23

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.08.17 18:11:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Govind Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Rajpoot 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

Kishan Singh @ Krishna @ Dhillari Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gufran Vs State of U.P.

Azhar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Kasim @ Kalu Vs State of U.P.