Allowed

Rajveer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023BAIL/8762/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving u/s 147, 148, 149 IPC. The court noted the applicant's confinement duration and lack of reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to appearing on trial dates and not tampering with evidence or pressuring witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163511

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8762 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 732 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 506, 354, 436, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Four persons including the applicant and 15-20 unknown persons are nominated in the first information report. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the daughter of the informant. It is next contended that coaccused Pradeep Yadav has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17151 of 2023, Pradeep Yadav v. State of U.P., vide order dated 17.04.2023. The case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Pradeep Yadav. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2022 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the applicant has remained confined for almost seven and half months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the

¶11

evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Rajveer, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.8.2023 SKT/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajveer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer 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

Rohitash Kumar Gangwar Vs State of U.P.

Ekman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munil Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Sabir @ Akram Vs State of U.P.

Raman Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Musarraf Vs State of U.P.