Allowed

Rahul Kanaujiya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/33474/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court accepted the applicant's claim of false implication and lack of independent evidence. Considering the applicant had been confined for nearly ten months and no reasonable apprehension of tampering or witness intimidation, the court granted bail with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions of appearance, no tampering, and monthly reporting.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165068

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33474 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rahul Kanaujiya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 143 of 2022, under Sections 411, 413 I.P.C., Police Station Hanumant Vihar, District Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of mobile phones, Bluetooth speaker and ornaments of yellow and white metals has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Indian currency of Rs.830/- recovered from the applicant belongs to him. Except confessional statement of the applicant in the police custody, there is no evidence against the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraphs- 10 and 11 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 19.10.2022 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the applicant has remained confined for almost ten months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be

¶11

enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Rahul Kanaujiya, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶16

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court; and,

¶17

(v) shall appear on 15th of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 17.8.2023

¶20

SKT/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Kanaujiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kanaujiya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Ikram Vs State of U.P.

Savri Vs State of U.P.

Arshad Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.