Allowed

Raju Singh @ Himanshu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023BAIL/47626/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a bail application filed directly due to the applicant's inability to approach the lower court. The court relied on existing principles and the nature of the offence to grant bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, leaving t

Raju Singh @ Himanshu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213751

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47626 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Singh @ Himanshu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Omar Zamin 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

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the present bail application is being moved in the newly added section 34 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, applicant was working as employee in the restaurant in question, where the dispute has arisen with members of the Bar Association Gorakhpur, as a result of the same Gorakhpur Bar Association was agitated and has resorted to abstaining from work. He submits that on account of the dispute with the members of the Bar Association Gorakhpur, the applicant is not in a position to approach the court below for being enlarged on bail and as such the present bail application is being filed before this Court directly. He submits that on the previous occasion also applicant was enlarged on bail by entertaining the bail application directly on account of the fact and circumstances prevailing in the District Court, Gorakhpur. He has drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 03.10.2023 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38869 of 2023 (Raju Singh @ Himanshu vs. State of U.P. and another), where the circumstances have been discussed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. at this stage submits that he would have no objection in case the bail application is entertained before this Court directly in view of the circumstances narrated in the previous bail order dated 03.10.2023.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the first information report. Name of the applicant has surfaced during investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to the injury reports of injured Sannesh Tiwari and Avanish Kumar Pandey, which are lacerated wound and skin deep caused by hard and blunt object. The dispute arisen in spur of moment and the applicant being employee of the restaurant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant is

¶11

languishing in jail since 28.07.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case and the circumstances that previously the applicant has been granted bail on 03.10.2023 and now after investigation new section being Section 34 IPC has been added against the applicant.

¶13

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.

¶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 for the State 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 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.

¶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 offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, reasons recorded in the previous bail order dated 03.10.2023, 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.

¶20

Let the applicant Raju Singh @ Himanshu involved in Case Crime No. 540 of 2023, under added Section 34 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, 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

¶21

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 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 :- 7.11.2023 S.Prakash

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Singh @ Himanshu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Singh @ Himanshu v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Manvendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Amir Iqbal Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Shamarjahan Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad @ Aashu Vs State of U.P.