Allowed

Devendra Kumar Rajput v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2023BAIL/59702/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant charged with murder. The applicant alleged false implication and family collusion. The Court found a prima facie case for bail and imposed conditions regarding court attendance and consequences of breach.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two heavy local sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and no adjournments.

Devendra Kumar Rajput Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110543

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59702 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Rajput Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The prosecution story in brief is that due to matrimonial discord, the sister of the applicant namely, Nidhi Rajput was living with her mother behind the house situated at Sanju Dhaba and when she was sleeping, somebody has murdered her by strangling and slitting and when her mother seen her in a dead state, the informant was intimated about the incident, pursuant to which F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been registered against unknown person and that the name of the applicant surfaced in his own confessional statement. He further submits that in fact, the deceased was living with her mother and the applicant used to make frequent visit on account of which, both of them fell in love with each other and it appears that the deceased has been murdered by her own family members in collusion with some unknown miscreants. Learned counsel has also argued that had the applicant had to murder, then he would had murdered the husband of the deceased instead of deceased. It has also been argued that the sole eye-witness i.e. mother of the deceased has not named the applicant and that there is a contradiction in the statement as well as prosecution version. Learned counsel has next argued that the alleged recovery of one knife is said to have been made on the pointing of the applicant when in fact, nothing has been recovered from the possession or pointing of the applicant. He next submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village parti bandi. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made

¶8

against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 05.06.2022 having no criminal history. 3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

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, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Devendra Kumar Rajput involved in Case Crime No.158 of 2022 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Raksa, District Jhansi, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

I. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.

¶12

II. The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

III. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his

¶14

presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails 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.

¶15

IV. 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 trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 S.Ali

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Kumar Rajput v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Rajput 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

Ankush Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Phool Singh Raidas Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Ratnesh Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Vs State of U.P.