Allowed

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023BAIL/45198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding alleged offences under Sections 386, 507, and 120-B IPC, the High Court allowed the bail of the applicant. The court observed that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, noting no material circumstances suggested the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or flee from justice.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Rajendra Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216297

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45198 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Dubey,Chandra Bhan Dubey,Sharda Prasad Mishra,Subhash Chandra Maurya,Vipin Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegations in the first information report a Whatsapp message was received by the informant threatening the informant. In the first information report, it has been stated that the informant had suspicion that the applicant is the person who has involved in the sending of the aforesaid message on Whatsapp. During investigation, no Whatsapp message has been recovered from the co-accused Harish, who has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 31.10.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.45907 of 2023. Sending of Whatsapp message by itself cannot be a ground for proceeding against the applicant under Section 386 I.P.C. as no amount has been transferred. Although there is no demand made by the applicant and even it is the prosecution case that the applicant was instrumental in demand of amount at best Section 385 I.P.C. would be made out. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 25.9.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

3A. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Isaac

¶10

Isanga Musumba and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2014) 15 SCC 357.

¶11

Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the offence under Section 386 I.P.C. would not be made out against the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

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

¶13

5A. Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶14

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

¶15

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 has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of

¶20

offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of 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.

¶21

Let the applicant Rajendra Singh involved in Case Crime No.844 of 2023, under Sections 386, 507, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 9.11.2023 Bhaskar

¶31

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh 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

Deepesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Muslim Miya Vs State of U.P.

Nandlal Patel Vs State of U.P.

Dablu @ Bablu @ Nabal Kishore Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others