Allowed

Rahul @ Panda v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2023BAIL/54676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the applicant, Rahul @ Panda, under Sections 302 IPC, asserting lack of eyewitness evidence, delayed FIR, and jail overcrowding. The Court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case but emphasized the right to a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and no tampering.

Rahul @ Panda Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 01.03.2023 Delivered On:- 03.03.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54676 of 2022 Applicant :- Rahul @ Panda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Verma, Dileep Singh Yadav, Swapnesh Singh, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

There is allegation in the FIR that the brother of the informant, Vinay Dixit, had gone for a walk at 09:00 pm on 24.02.2022 but he did not returned back in the night. On the next day, dead body of his brother was found in the naali adjacent to the field of Sadhu Singh. The applicant and three co-accused, namely, Gaurav Yadav, Rajkumar Yadav and Sanjeev Kumar, were implicated on the allegation that they had enmity with the deceased and had extended him threats earlier. They have also put the hut of the deceased on fire earlier.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the FIR was lodged with delay of one day. Neither the applicant nor the co-accused called him from the house and took him along with them. There is no eyewitness account of the incident. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. The applicant was falsely implicated in this case and it is case of malicious prosecution. Subsequently, another person, Rishi @ Bobby, was introduced in this case. The statement of the informant was recorded wherein he repeated the allegations made in the

¶8

¶9

FIR and further stated that the accused persons extort money after beating persons of the village. He was also threatened by them for withdrawing this case.

¶10

In the supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant, it has been stated that the mother of the applicant is Siksha Mitra and at present Block Level Officer. There was dispute regarding removal of names of voters from voter list due to which the informant side lost the gram pradhan election. Therefore, there was enmity between the informant and the mother of the applicant due to which he has been falsely implicated. He has submitted that except the allegations in the FIR and the statement of the informant there is no credible evidence against the applicant. He has submitted that in the statement of the informant he has improved the case alleged in the FIR by saying that the accused persons came to his house and called the deceased on the pretext of going on a walk which was not alleged in the FIR. Affidavit of Smt. Geeta Devi, has been filed before the investigating officer in this regard also. The applicant is in jail since 11.07.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶11

Learned A.G.A has opposed the bail application of the applicant.

¶12

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; applicants 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

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Rahul @ Panda, involved in Case Crime No. 80 of 2022, under Sections- 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, Police StationDibiyapur, District- Auraiya, 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.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(v) 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

¶21

¶22

Trial Court absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶25

Order Date :- 03.03.2023

¶26

Rohit

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul @ Panda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul @ Panda 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

Abdul Vs State of U.P.

Sudheer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhdev @ Sukhvindra @ Sukkha Vs State of U.P.

Anurag @ Brahma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kitabuddin Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anjana @ Gudiya Vs State of U.P.