Allowed

Subba @ Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023BAIL/8100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail for the applicant charged with murder. The court granted relief due to procedural irregularities in investigation, absence of prosecution witnesses, lack of criminal history, and jail overcrowding, citing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including prohibition on tampering with witnesses and strict appearance requirements.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142645

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8100 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Subba @ Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui,Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR that on 23.09.2020, the brother of the informant, Chandrabhan, aged about 27 years went missing. On 25.09.2020, his elder brother lodged his missing report, thereafter the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 27.09.2020 from open place. There was injury found on the head of the deceased by some stone. It has further alleged in the FIR that the applicant used to work with the deceased as plumber and he used to consume liquor, fish and chicken with him and used to talk with the wife of the deceased and coaccused, Geeta, in her house for long time. Hence, it was alleged that the deceased was not happy with the applicant and the applicant in collusion with co-accused, Geeta, has caused his murder and removed him from their way. FIR has been lodged by younger brother of the deceased when the missing report was lodged by his elder brother.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication. The dead body of the deceased was recovered from open place and the applicant got the stone allegedly used in the crime recovered on 30.09.2020. There were no blood stain found on the same. Explanation was given that in the rain the blood has been washed off and therefore the stone was clear. In the recovery memo, it has been mentioned that when the applicant was taken by the police on the place of incident, he took up stone and stated that this is the stone used in the commission of alleged offence.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the manner of recovery is itself doubtful. Before the trial Court, charges have only been framed. The applicant is in jail since 01.10.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. Thereafter, not a single

¶10

prosecution witness has turned up. In support of his contention, he has placed before this Court the latest order sheet of the trial Court.

¶11

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶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; 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.

¶13

Let the applicant, Subba @ Rajendra, involved in Case Crime No. 935 of 2020, under Section- 302, 34 IPC, Police StationSoraon, District- Allahabad (Prayagraj), 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.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 applicant fails to appear before the

¶18

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.

¶19

(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 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶23

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 Rohit

¶25

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

Subba @ Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subba @ Rajendra 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

Sachin Gupta @ Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Madanlal @ Puttu Vs State of U.P.

Rinku @ Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Balwan Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waris Vs State of U.P.