Allowed

Rajaram and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023BAIL/50426/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for two applicants charged with cheating and smuggling illicit liquor. The court held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, finding no material to suggest tampering with evidence, intimidation, or flight.

What did the court decide?

Releasing applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specified conditions regarding evidence, witnesses, and court appearance.

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232644

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50426 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajaram And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer 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 as per allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that 994 cartons of illicit liquor has been recovered from the truck. Applicant no. 2 is the driver and applicant no. 1 is the fellow passenger. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. The applicants have no previous criminal history. Applicants are languishing in jail since 14.09.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

(10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicants.

¶14

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 their mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

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 applicants 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.

¶16

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicants are not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of 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 applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicants Rajaram and Rajesh involved in Case Crime No. 536 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 60/63 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sobbhadra, 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make themself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶22

iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶23

v. The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

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

¶25

vii. In the event, the applicants change residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶26

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

¶27

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 S.Prakash

¶28

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

Rajaram and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram and Another 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

Gudiya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ukewe Cyprian Vs State of U.P.

Ghanshyam Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.