Allowed

Devraj @ Annu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2023BAIL/37846/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was decided where the High Court granted bail to the applicant after considering the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of recovery from the applicant, and the fact that the trial could not be concluded early without tangible reasons to deny release.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties amounting to the satisfaction of the court on conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses and to appear for trial.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172766

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37846 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Devraj @ Annu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 278 of 2023, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police StationBakewar, District- Etawah during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 18.6.2023 and the first information has been lodged on 13.7.2023. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The applicant was arrested on 13.7.2023 along with three other coaccused and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. No recovery of any incriminating articles has been made from the applicant. The recovered amount belongs to the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 15 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 14.7.2023. In case he is enlarged 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 more than one month 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Devraj @ Annu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two

¶12

sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶13

i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶15

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 28.8.2023 S.S.

¶18

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

Devraj @ Annu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devraj @ Annu 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

Arvind Kumar Bhartiya Vs State of U.P.

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Mukeem Vs State of U.P.

Amit Vs State of U.P.

Karan @ Billa Vs State of U.P.

Tribhuwan Singh Vs State of U.P.