Allowed

Rajesh Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2023BAIL/48283/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to the applicant, who was an under-trial accused in a case punishable under Sections 376 and 328 IPC. Granting bail was primarily based on the delay in the trial, jail overcrowding, and the victim's unavailability in Australia, relying on the Apex Court's direction in Satendra Kumar Antil regarding speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Application to release the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:216857

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48283 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Giri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rajeev Giri, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rajesh Rai, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 188 of 2017, under Section 376 and 328 IPC Police Station Chowk, District- Varanasi, during pendency of trial.

¶8

This is the second bail application.The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Bench vide order dated 22.2.2023 directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year as per section 309 Cr.P.c. from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶9

Learned Senior Advocate of the applicant has submitted that order of this court was communicated to the trial court by this Court on 15.4.2023. From the order sheet of the trial court it is apparent that charges have been framed on 30.6.2023 under section 376 and 328 I.P.C.Thereafter number of dates have been fixed but the victim has not appeared despite issuance of bailable warrant. She is residing in Australia and not cooperating with trial. The applicant is in jail since 6.11.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the

¶12

learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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

¶13

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

That 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 ofÏcer;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are

¶19

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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶20

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 9.11.2023

¶23

Atul kr. sri.

¶24

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

Rajesh Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh 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

Chandrapal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Singh @ Kakku Singh Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanoj Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Bhavna Vs State of U.P.