Dismissed

Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2023ABAIL/10847/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refused an application for anticipatory bail from Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav accused of attempted murder causing grievous hurt with a firearm, citing the serious nature of the charge and active participation in the crime.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail refused and application rejected.

Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187997

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10847 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anish Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Chandra Pandey,Revati Raman Vishwakarma

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav seeking anticipatory bail in Sessions Trial No. 2081 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 0599 of 2021, under Sections 323 and 307 IPC, Police Station Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahr.

¶7

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

¶8

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is also submitted that though the applicant is named in the F.I.R. but during investigation the Investigating Officer did not find any evidence against him and that is why charge sheet has not been submitted against him. It is also submitted that from the contents of F.I.R. and the statements of informant and injured witness it is not clear as to what was the exact role assigned to the present applicant. It is further submitted that only one gunshot injury has been caused to the injured. It is next submitted that in the initial statement made by the injured only role of exhortation was assigned to the present applicant. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that firearm injury has been caused in the chest of the injured. It is also submitted that active participation of the present applicant in commission of the

¶10

crime has been found on the basis of depositions made by the material witnesses before the Court. Applicant was well present at the place of occurrence and he has actively participated in the commission of the crime.

¶11

In this matter, it reveals from the perusal of the record that named accused persons Tota, Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav, the present applicant, and his companions made fire upon the son of the informant with intention to kill him by firearm. He sustained firearm injury in his chest. F.I.R. was lodged on 14.6.2021 but after investigation no charge sheet was submitted against the present applicant. During course of trial on the basis of statement of injured witness and other witnesses the present applicant was summoned to face trial under Sections 307/34 and 323 IPC. It further reveals from the perusal of the record that on the basis of depositions made by the material witnesses before the Court during trial, active participation of the present applicant in commission of the crime has been found. Serious and grievous firearm injury has been caused to the injured of the case on sensitive part of body.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶13

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶14

The application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 27.9.2023/safi

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambhool @ Rajneesh Yadav 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

Brahma Nand Khare Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohindar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Inderpal Singh Sachar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Zakir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhannar Devi Vs State of U.P.

Amarnath and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another