Allowed

Dheeraj Kumar Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023BAIL/3549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder trial case involving Sections 302, 307, and 34 IPC. The court released him on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding presence and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to satisfaction of court concerned, subject to conditions regarding appearance, no interference with witness

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

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3549 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Yadav,Babu Ram Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Arun Yadav, learned counsel for the informant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Dheeraj Kumar Rai, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2021, under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC, Police Station Nandganj, District- Ghazipur, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation against the father and mother of the applicant and his brother, Pradeep that they have caused murder of one person with common intention.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that mother and father of the applicant have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24578 of 2021 and 26953 of 2021. In the FIR it is alleged that co-accused, Pradeep, made indiscriminate firing on the deceased. Mother and father of the applicant exonerated that the deceased has not died. Thereafter brother of the applicant, Pradeep, made two more fire on the deceased. There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant also fired on the informant, but it missed the target. He has submitted that the role of causing fatal fire arm injury has been assigned to co-accused Pradeep. The applicant has been implicated in this case after six months of the incident. He has criminal history of one case explained in supplementary affidavit and is languishing in jail since 18.11.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side;

¶12

applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dheeraj Kumar Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeraj Kumar 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

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Chintamani@ Munna Mall Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Dohare Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Kumar Baghel Vs State of U.P.

Raju Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Shashikant @ Kakul Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others