Allowed

Rahul Madheshiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2022BAIL/5140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed bail for the applicant accused of robbery, noting he was not named in the FIR, criminal history was explained, and jail overcrowding due to COVID-19 warranted release.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions including non-interference with witnesses and refraining from criminal activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5140 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Madheshiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachchida Nand Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sachchida Nand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shravan Kumar Ojha the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Rahul Madheshiya for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.196 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411, IPC registered at Police Station- Sevrahi, District- Kushi Nagar.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 23.11.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Mohd. Azaharuddin against the unknown persons before Police Station- Sevrahi, District- Kushi Nagar being FIR no.0196 of 2021 on 18.8.2021 at 17:29 hours under Sections 379 IPC regarding commission of offence with an allegation that the unknown persons had come in motorcycle and robbed the valuables.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention towards recovery memo while recovery of 7 motorcycles from 5 unnamed persons were shown to have been made. He has further argued that he is not named in the FIR and the recovery is planted one and he has been falsely implicated in the case in question in order to settle the score.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph-9 so as to contend that so far as Case Crime No.201/2021, is concerned, the same is post lodging of the FIR, in which applicant has been enlarged on bail. So far as Case Crime No.117 of 2021 the applicant has been enlarged on bail today itself in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5074 of 2021 before Court No.77 at serial no.11. So far as Case Crime No.182 of 2021, the applicant has been bailed out by the court below.

¶11

Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, he has been explained criminal history and the applicant has further

¶12

argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 21.8.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant, as such he has been proceeded in the case in question and merely because he was not named in the FIR will not be a ground to hold the applicant innocent, but he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 21.8.2021. Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the criminal history has been properly explained and applicant is languishing in jail since 21.8.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant- Rahul Madheshiya involved in aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶17

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶21

facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶26

Order Date :- 17.2.2022 piyush

¶27

Digitally signed by PIYUSH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.21 10:18:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Madheshiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Madheshiya 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

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Arif Mota Vs State of U.P.

Haridesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Suresh Singh Rana Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jumma Vs State of U.P.