Allowed

Pramod Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2022BAIL/58252/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Pramod Rajpoot in a robbery case. Considering the lack of independent witnesses against the applicant and the release of co-accused on bail, the order granted bail subject to personal bond and sureties and specific attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two local sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

Pramod Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58252 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pramod Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Pramod Rajpoot with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in C ase Crime No. 104 of 2022, under Sections 395, 342, 411, 420, 468, 471 of IPC, Police Station- Ata, District- Jalaun.

¶7

As per the prosecution story, informant Manoj Kumar lodged the FIR on 24.9.2022 alleging therein that he was trapped by three persons, who got the car booked for Jolapur, Jalaun on 22.9.2022 and kidnapped by keeping him in apprehension of death. Thereafter, kept him under a dilapidated house and robbed his mobile phone, Rs.55,00/-, a gold ring and the car from his possession.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is not named in the present first information report and on the basis of his confessional statements of the five co-accused persons given before the Police, he has been implicated in the present case along with co-accused Vikash Yadav, which confessional statement has no evidentiary value as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that neither the applicant has been arrested from the spot nor anything incriminating material has been recovered from his possession or his pointing out. There is no public or independent witness on the basis of which it can be said that the present applicant is involved in the commission of alleged offence. It is further submitted that the co-accused Satyam Rajpoot, Kapil Kumar Rajpoot and Vikash Yadav have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.11.2022, 05.12.2022 and 13.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 48210 of 2022, 54429 of 2022 and 56883 of 2022 respectively. The case of the present applicant is on better footing to that of the co-accused Satyam Rajpoot and Kapil Kumar Rajpoot and is on similar footing to that of the co-accused Vikash Yadav. As such the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 4th October, 2022.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the

¶10

applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(ii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 20.12.2022

¶19

Sushil/-

¶20

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.22 09:25:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pramod Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khalid Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Vs State of U.P.

Rupendra @ Rupendra Rajpoot @ Rupendra Lodhi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ajay @ Alla Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Farman Vs State of U.P.