Allowed

Rai Sahab Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/2765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with murder relating to a deceased minor sister, emphasizing that he does not have a criminal history, considering the jail overcrowding due to the pandemic, and observing his consistent conduct pending the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant allowed to be released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the court below under conditions.

Rai Sahab Prajapati Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2765 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rai Sahab Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Istiyaq Ali,Ali Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ali Hasan, learned counsel assisted by Shri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 0198 of 2021 at Police Station Badlapur District Jaunpur under Sections 147, 302, 34 I.P.C.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur on 01.09.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 04.07.2021 pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Ali Hasan, learned counsel assisted by Shri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is the brother of the deceased. The informant of the FIR is the father of the applicant. The recitals in the FIR disclose that the deceased was murdered on account of property dispute with the five named accused persons. The applicant was not named in the FIR. The first statement and the second statement given by the informant before the police authorities under Section 161 Cr.P.C were consistent with the FIR. The applicant was not nominated in the aforesaid statements as assailant or an accused. However under constant pressure from the police

¶10

authorities the informant named the applicant in his third statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C which was given on 04.07.2021. The delay in the statement impeaches its credibility. The aforesaid statement was given under duress and is completely inconsistent with the FIR version as well as earlier statement of the informant. There is no property dispute in the family. The victim was the minor sister of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to other co-accused namely Nagina Devi who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 01.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38922 of 2021. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant- Rai Sahab Prajapati be released on bail in Case Crime No.198 of 2021 at Police Station Badlapur District Jaunpur under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 Nadeem

¶22

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.02.14 10:23:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rai Sahab Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rai Sahab Prajapati 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

Jogendra Singh Vs State of Up.

Ashraf Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dhirendra Vs State of U.P.

Sanjiv Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dilwari Vs State of U.P.

Vinod @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. and Another