Raju v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single-judge High Court allowed bail to an applicant falsely implicated in a culpable homicide case after exoneration of the primary accused, citing doubts in the prosecution version and prison overcrowding without analyzing merits.
What did the court decide?
Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties upon compliance with conditions against tampering and failure to appear.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:237204
Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51364 of 2023 Applicant :- Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
There is main allegation against named accused, Ramu, of committing the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of one person. During investigation main accused, Ramu, was exonerated by the investigating officer and in his place name of applicant was introduced who has been implicated in this case. Statements of witnesses were recorded against him.
Counsel for the applicant submits that the named accused, Kusuma Devi and Shiv Singh, have been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40482 of 2023 and 50195 of 202. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case during investigation. On account of exoneration of named accused, Ramu, prosecution case appears to be doubtful. The applicant is in jail since 28.07.2023 and has no criminal history to his credit.
On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the 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 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.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who alleges false implication and lack of criminal history.
Whether the conviction of alternative accused and uncertain prosecution case justify bail under Article 21.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Raju
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Siddharth
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/51364/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court