Allowed

S.R. Rajpoot Alias Sheeshram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023BAIL/5568/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC regarding a murder charge (Section 376 IPC), the High Court allowed the appellant to be released on personal bond and two sureties, imposing standard conditions including absence from witnesses and non-interference, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with witnesses.

S.R. Rajpoot Alias Sheeshram Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187668

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5568 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- S.R. Rajpoot Alias Sheeshram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Bind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No.14 of 2022, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station G.R.P. Chandausi, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence available against the appellant. Appellant was not seen with the deceased last time before her death. No motive has been assigned to the appellant. No incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing of the appellant. It is further submitted that the statement of the sister of deceased Suman recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is only alleged that appellant was having close relations with the deceased. She has expressed mere suspicion over the appellant. It is further submitted that so far as the statement of the Gunjan, the friend of the deceased is concerned, it also does not indicate the involvement of the appellant in the incident. It is further submitted that two other coaccused persons, who were seen last time in the company of the deceased, are exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that co-accused Isteyak has been granted bail. Appellant is languishing in jail since 03.11.2022 having no criminal history. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶10

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.

¶11

Let appellant, S.R. Rajpoot Alias Sheeshram be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶12

(i) The appellant 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶13

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

(iii) The appellant 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

(iv) The appellant 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 the trial court.

¶16

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶17

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant 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 in accordance with law.

¶19

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶20

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Imtiyaz

¶22

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

S.R. Rajpoot Alias Sheeshram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R. Rajpoot Alias Sheeshram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Alias Bachchu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Raj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Kant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

S.R. Rajpoot @ Shishram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bali @ Bali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.