Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120809

Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16519 of 2023

Applicant :- Rinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the first information report, the accused persons have assaulted the informant, and as a result of the same, informant has sustained injuries. The applicant is alleged to have assaulted the informant with iron rod on the back. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that thereafter the informant was medically examined, where L1 fracture was found, which is a serious injury as per the opinion of the doctor who has conducted medical examination of the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to brief discharge summary of the injured at Pg-49 of the paper book to submit that the patient has fallen from the height and sustained injuries over the back and side chest. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court to the discharge summary of MIOT International, which is at Pg-41 of the counter affidavit, where also it was found that the patient has fallen from height from terrace. It is further submitted that even as per the first information report, the allegations with regard to fallen from terrace is attributable to accused no. 3- Mamta. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

3A. Learned counsel for the informant Mrs. Shilpa Ahuja submits that the injured has sustained serious injuries, fracture in L1, however, on specific query being made to learned counsel for the informant as to the statement made in the discharge summary, which is the document of the informant himself where the patient injured due to falling from height, learned counsel for the informant could not explain the aforesaid statement in the discharge summary.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶11

Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶12

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶13

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶14

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of

¶18

offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶19

Let the applicant Rinku involved in Case Crime No. 330 of 2022, under Sections 308, 325, 352, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Lalpur-Pandeypur, District- Varanasi, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶23

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶24

v. 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.

¶25

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶26

vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶28

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 Sumit Kumar

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Aashish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ramdular Vs State of U.P.

Dipendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mudit Rai @ Meetu Vs State of U.P.

Sachchan Khan Vs State of U.P.