Allowed

Brijesh Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2022BAIL/8005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application for Brijesh Rajbhar in a case involving theft and conspiracy. The court found it fit to grant bail due to the applicant's lack of criminal history, weak eyesight, and the overcrowding of jails during the pandemic, despite the applicant being in custody since January 9, 2022.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence, not commit further crimes, and cooperate in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8005 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Brijesh Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Siddharth Shankar Mishra, learned State Law Officer 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- Brijesh Rajbhar for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 398 of 2021, under Sections 395, 342, 120B I.P.C, registered at Police Station- Ghosi, District- Mau.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 10.2.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged against unnamed persons regarding commission of the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards page-31 of the bail application so as to contend that the name of the applicant has surfaced only to the extent that applicant is owner of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has given the said vehicle to one Sri Ravindra Yadav for the purposes of his personal use. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph-12 of the bail application so as to contend that the applicant suffers from weak eyesight and further towards paragaph-13, so as to contend that he is not involved in any of the said cases and possesses no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph-8 so as to contend that neither in the FIR, nor in the charge sheet, his name finds place. Learned counsel for the applicant has next drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph-16 of the bail application so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history and he is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 9.1.2022. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed offence,

¶10

but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant does not possess any criminal history.

¶11

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 applicant does not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 9.1.2022, 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.

¶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

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Brijesh Rajbhar 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.3.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶23

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.08 09:53:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijesh Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Rajbhar 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

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Akshay @ Monti Vs State of U.P.

Amir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Singh Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Chhote Lala Tiwari Vs State of up