Rohit and Another Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:224261

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48381 of 2023

Applicant :- Rohit And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas,Sarve Nazir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants Rohit and Chetan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 44 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, registered at P.S. Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.

¶9

The FIR of the matter was lodged on 24.01.2023 by Smt. Sakeena against the applicants and Jatin alleging therein that her son Faizan went missing on 29.09.2022 for which she lodged a missing report on 30.09.2022. Subsequently on 27.10.2022 she received an information from Police Station Udham Singh Nagar, District Kushi Nagar, Uttarakhand showing the photograph of a boy on which she identified him as her son from his clothes. Her son was murdered. She suspects that her son has been murdered by the accused persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the implication of the applicants in the present matter is on the basis of suspicion only. It is argued that co-accused Jatin had eloped with the daughter of applicant no.1/Rohit in which the name of her son Faizan had also surfaced due to which Jatin was annoyed with it. It is argued that there is no motive against the applicants to commit the aforesaid offence. It is further argued that there is no credible evidence against the applicants. It is further argued that there is no recovery of any incriminating material from

¶11

the applicants. Para 31 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is argued that charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicants and as such there are no chances of the applicants tampering with evidence. He further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 5 the affidavit and are in jail since 30.07.2022.

¶12

Per contra, learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the implication of the applicants is on the basis of suspicion in the present matter. The investigation concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Let the applicants Rohit and Chetan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation,

¶20

then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶21

(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶23

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶24

The bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 28.11.2023 M. ARIF

¶26

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Musarraf Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Aditya @ Vishnu Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Vs State of U.P.