Allowed

Raj Kishore @ Duriya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023BAIL/21074/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Raj Kishore accused of murder, noting prior acquittals, deceased's criminal history, and three-year imprisonment, without delving into case merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount with conditions.

Raj Kishore @ Duriya Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160784

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21074 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Raj Kishore @ Duriya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 133 of 2020, under Sections 302/34, 120B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person and according to the FIR, two unknown persons have committed the murder of the husband of the informant. It is further mentioned in the FIR that incident was witnessed by two witnesses Sunil Yadav and Chhatrapal Yadav.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown persons and admittedly, informant of the case is not an eye-witness and in the FIR although Chhatrapal Yadav was also made witness alongwith Sunil Yadav but during investigation, he has been made accused in the present matter with the aid of section 120B IPC.

¶10

He further submitted that the sole witness of the case is Sunil Yadav. He next submitted that from the statement of Sunil Yadav it reflects that he was highly inimical with the coaccused Babu@Himanshu and applicant who is having close

¶11

contact with Babu@Himanshu, has been implicated by the witness Sunil Yadav only due to the enmity with co-accused Babu@Himanshu.

¶12

He further submitted that even from the statement of Sunil Yadav, the single eye-witness it appears that he was a chance witness as he did not accompany the deceased and no reliance can be placed on such version.

¶13

He further submitted that deceased was hardened criminal and he is having criminal history of about 38 cases and therefore, it appears that somebody else has committed his murder and only due to the enmity Sunil Yadav who is eye witness disclosed the name of the applicant and co-accused Babu@Himanshu. He further submitted that co-accused Babu@Himanshu has already been released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.12.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33849 of 2020.

¶14

He further submitted that although applicant is having criminal history of 11 cases but out of them in two cases, applicant has already been acquitted and proceeding of one case has been quashed and two cases were of Section 110 Cr.P.C. and he has explained the criminal history of applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

¶15

He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 29.5.2020 i.e. for more than three years and trial of the case till date could not be concluded.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per eye-witness Sunil Yadav applicant alongwith Babu@Himanshu committed the murder of the deceased but could not dispute the fact that co-accused

¶17

Babu@Himanshu has already been released on bail and from the statement of Sunil Yadav, it appears that his statement was recorded after 11 days and he was chance witness.

¶18

He further could not dispute the fact that deceased was having criminal history of 38 cases. Although, he further submitted that applicant is also having criminal history of 11 cases.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶20

Although, applicant is having criminal history of 11 cases and the eye witness Sunil Yadav stated that he and co-accused Babu@Himanshu committed the murder but bail application of Babu@Himanshu has already been allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶21

Further criminal history of applicant has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and from the record, it also reflects that deceased Anurag Sharma, was having criminal history of 38 cases. Further applicant in the present matter is in jail for more than three years.

¶22

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Raj Kishore @ Duriya, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶28

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

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶30

Order Date :- 9.8.2023

¶31

Ankita

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kishore @ Duriya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishore @ Duriya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Raju Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pal Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Verma Vs State of U.P.