Allowed

Raju @ Rajkumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022BAIL/47200/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court allowed the release of the applicant in a murder case where his name surfaced late in the investigation. Considering the long jail term, delay in trial, and lack of sufficient evidence, bail was granted with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and not seeking adjournments.

Raju @ Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47200 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju @ Rajkumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashvani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, filed today in Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This is second bail application. The first being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45056 of 2018 was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2022.

¶8

This bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 106 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced for the first time in the statements of Ravindra and Akbar, which was recorded on 20.06.2018 i.e. after two months of the incident, wherein they had stated that they have last seen the deceased in the company of the applicant on 20.04.2018 at about 1:00 PM and thereafter, he was not seen alive, however, they had earlier not disclosed this fact because of fear and to avoid bitter relations with the villagers. Thereafter, statement of one Bal Kishan has been recorded, who has stated that the applicant had approached him at his house and had made extra judicial confession to him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that said statements of the aforesaid witnesses has seen the light of the day only after two months of the incident, for which, no tenable explanation has been tendered.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that no recovery whatsoever has been made either from the

¶13

possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that even during the course of trial, statement of as many as five prosecution witnesses has been recorded. PW-1 first informant and PW-2 uncle of the deceased have not supported the prosecution story and have been declared hostile. PW-3 Akbar Ali, who is alleged to have last seen of the deceased in the company of the applicant, has reiterated the said factum in his examination-in-chief but during cross examination, he has categorically stated that in the evening, when the efforts were being made for tracing out the victim, he was also present there, however, said fact has not been disclosed by him and the same has been disclosed after two months of the incident.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that as many as 18 prosecution witnesses are to be examined. Out of them, only 5 prosecution witnesses has been examined. The applicant is in jail for the last more than four and a half year. The chances of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak because of the heavy dockets and 13 more prosecution witnesses are to be examined.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that the applicant is in jail since 25.06.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses, as such, he may be released on bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶17

Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced for the first time in the statements of Ravindra and Akbar, which was recorded on 20.06.2018 i.e. after two months of the incident, wherein they had stated that they have seen the deceased in the company of the applicant on 20.04.2018 at about 1:00 PM. Thereafter, statement of one Bal Kishan has been recorded, who has stated that the applicant had approached him at his house and had made extra judicial confession to him.

¶18

Even during the course of trial, statement of as many as five prosecution witnesses has been recorded. PW-1 first informant and PW-2 uncle of the deceased have not supported the prosecution story and have been declared hostile. No recovery whatsoever has been made either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing

¶19

out. Except the evidence of last seen and extra judicial confession, which has seen the light of the day after two months, no clinching or cogent evidence is prima facie available on record. Even, PW-3, the last seen witness has not supported the prosecution story on material particulars.

¶20

As many as 13 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. The applicant has been in jail for the last more than four and a half year. The chances of trial being concluded in near future is very bleak because of the heavy dockets and 13 more prosecution witnesses are to be examined. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and has regularly been co-operating in the trial. There is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant has prima facie made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Raju @ Rajkumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶22

(1). 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.

¶23

(2). The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶24

(3). 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 IPC.

¶25

(4). 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 the 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

¶26

court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶28

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶30

The bail application is accordingly allowed.

¶31

The trial court is expected to make all endeavours to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment in concluding the trial.

¶32

Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Nadim

¶33

Digitally signed by NADIM ALAM Date: 2022.12.19 13:22:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju @ Rajkumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajkumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheerendra @ Dheeraj @ Dheera and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Hanuman Sewak Pandey Vs State of U.P.

M/S Maa Shakti Ceramics Vs State of U.P. and Another

Zaikam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another