Allowed

Rahul Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023BAIL/1550/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Rahul Rai in a theft case. Relying on Article 21, jail overcrowding, and a recent Supreme Court judgment, the court granted bail without reviewing the merits of the case, directing the trial to conclude within a year.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including presence in court and expeditious conclusion of trial within one year.

Rahul Rai Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1550 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey,Sunita Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

There is allegation against the applicant of loot of Rs.51,450/- allegedly recovered from the applicant.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case after two months of the incident only to work out the case because he has criminal history of 18 cases. He is in jail since 18.12.2020.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the above submissions.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant, Rahul Rai, involved in Case Crime No.186 of 2020, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C, Police Station Badesar, District- Ghazipur 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) 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

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date

¶14

fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial court concerned within a week.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 SS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Rai 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

Lokesh Lodhi Vs State of U.P.

Raju Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Murtaja Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Qureshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh Vs State of U.P.