Allowed

Raju @ Kariya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023/8951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application regarding murder and kidnapping charges, the court granted bail after noting the applicant had no criminal antecedent, the trial faced significant delay despite 7 witnesses examined, and his right to a speedy trial was violated. The application was allowed with conditional release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties to attend hearings and not interfere with evidence.

Raju @ Kariya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47215

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8951 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raju @ Kariya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Singh,Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

2. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2022.

¶8

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was apprehended solely based upon his confessional statement. Leaned counsel has filed a supplementary affidavit to demonstrate that out of total 22 witnesses, 7 fact witnesses have already been examined. The applicant has no criminal antecedent. He argues that in view of the supplementary affidavit, it is clear that only 7 fact witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of the trial being completed in the near future as there are 22 witnesses to be examined. He argues that right to speedy trial of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution has been clearly violated.

¶9

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶10

5. Considering the sole submission coupled with the fact that the fact witnesses have already been examined, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future and the applicant is in custody for almost seven years having no criminal antecedent, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶11

6. Let the applicant Raju @ Kariya be released on bail in FIR No.341 of 2016, under Section 364, 302, 201 IPC, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶13

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the

¶14

offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 nishant

¶17

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju @ Kariya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Kariya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Shankar Singh Alias Sonu Singh Vs State of U.P. through the Principal Seccretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Shani @ Ajay Kumar maurya Vs State of u.p through print.secy.home civil secretairat lko

Shishupal @ Ramji Vs State of U.P. through its Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lko. and Ors.

Umesh Dikshit vs Smt. Indra Agnihotri and 5 Others

Gajendra Pal Singh and Anr. vs Learned Addl.District Judge Court NO.1 Lakhimpur Kheri andORS.

Vikrama Prasad Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Civil Secrt. Lko.