Allowed

Rajnu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2023BAIL/37381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Rajnu, who was charged with attempted murder and affray. The High Court held that bail is the rule and found no exceptional circumstances such as tampering, intimidation, or criminal history to deny bail, citing Satyendra Kumar Antil. The applicant was released on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:198187

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37381 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajnu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmed Faizan,Sr. Advocate,Zaheer Asghar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

1-A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 28.5.2022 and in the bail application it has been incorrectly transcribed as 28.5.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the same during the course of the day.

¶8

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

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Information Report was lodged against unknown person with the allegation that the informant who was constable in police while he was going on duty found that one person who was mentally not fit was having a sharp edged weapon in his hand and was abusing the public and when the informant trying to intervene he has attacked the informant and as a result of the same the informant has suffered injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that injuries have been sustained by the informant, however, the applicant was not apprehended from the spot and subsequently the applicant has been apprehended. As per the statement of the injured initially the injured did not know the name of the person who was mentally not fit, subsequently he found that applicant was involved. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no test identification parade has been carried out and there was no intention to commit culpable homicide. As per the prosecution case, the applicant was going on the road and was abusing the public and was carrying a sharp edged weapon and when the

¶10

informant tried to stop him the applicant has assaulted. The mind of the applicant was not stable at that point of time. He further submits that at the best offence would travel under Sections 308 and 325 I.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 28.5.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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 for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶15

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of

¶19

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.

¶20

Let the applicant- Rajnu involved in Case Crime No. 133 of 2022, under Sections 307, 333, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 13.10.2023 VMA

¶30

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajnu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnu 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

Rohitas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Kawarpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ragib Vs State of U.P.

Wasim Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Ansar Vs State of U.P.