Vinod Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023BAIL/8573/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; murder (S. 302 IPC) and causing disappearance of evidence (S. 201 IPC); Case Crime No. 207 of 2021, P.S. Narhi, District Ballia; applicant Vinod Rajbhar; last-seen role; custody since 14.11.2021; no criminal history; 5 of 16 witnesses examined; co-accused Phool Kumari and Ranju Rajbhar already bailed; Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I.; Article 21 speedy trial; jail overcrowding; one-sided investigation; conditions of bail; trial within one year; Allahabad High Court; Siddharth, J.; order dated 9.10.2023.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed: applicant Vinod Rajbhar to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 207 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions; Registrar (compliance) to communicate the order to the trial court within ten days. ¶¶13

Vinod Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Vinod Rajbhar, accused of offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC in Case Crime No. 207 of 2021, should be enlarged on bail.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of counsel, uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial, one-sided investigation ignoring the accused's case, the applicant's fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21, the dictum of the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I., and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails by under-trials, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, an undertaking not to seek adjournments, presence before the Trial Court, and liability under Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C. for defaults; breach of conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Siddharth, J.) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8573 of 2023 filed by Vinod Rajbhar, alleged to have committed murder and caused disappearance of the dead body of the informant's son in Case Crime No. 207 of 2021 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Narhi, District Ballia. The applicant, in custody since 14.11.2021 with no criminal history, was assigned only the role of 'last seen' with the deceased; five of sixteen prosecution witnesses had been examined, and co-accused Phool Kumari and Ranju Rajbhar had already been enlarged on bail. Considering the uncertainty of trial conclusion, alleged one-sided investigation, the under-trial's right to speedy trial under Article 21, the dictum in Satendra Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. (SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021), and 5-6 times overcrowding of jails, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court granted bail on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no adjournment-seeking, presence at trial, statutory consequences for default), and directed the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within one year.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:193941

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8573 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vinod Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Govind Jee Rai,Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant of committing the offence of murder and causing disappearance of dead body of son of the informant

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has only been assigned the role of last seen with the deceased. The informant has been examined before the trial court and also other witnesses have been examined who have stated that they saw the applicant taking liquor with him and going towards the scene of incident. There is no credible evidence against the applicant to implicate him directly in this case. Co-accused, Phool Kumari and Ranju Rajbhar, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 23258 of 2022 and 13837 of 2022. The applicant is in jail since 14.11.2021 and has no criminal history to his credit. Five out of sixteen prosecution witnesses have been examined. The witnesses of fact have already been examined. There is no possibility of tampering with the evidence of prosecution.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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, Vinod Rajbhar, involved in Case Crime No. 207 of 2021, under Sections- 302, 201 IPC, Police Station- Narhi, District- Ballia, 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 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.

¶18

(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

¶19

proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20