Allowed

Aman Rajput v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024/137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC-LKO granted bail to Aman Rajput charged with IPC 394, 411, and 326. The court accepted arguments that the applicant was not in the FIR, his identity was doubtful, no incriminating articles were recovered from him, and a co-accused was already on bail. Trial presence was ensured via a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in like amounts, subject to conditions against tampering and ensuring trial attendance.

Aman Rajput Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6613

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 137 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aman Rajput Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Aman Rajput for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 0795/2023, under Sections 394, 411 and 326 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Unnao, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is case of false implication. The incident is of 20.09.2023 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 21.09.2023, however, the applicant was not named in the FIR and during the course of investigation the applicant is shown to have been arrested on 24.09.2023 along with some other accused persons and Rs. 720/- is shown to have been recovered and he also stated to have confessed his guilt while in the custody of police, however, no incriminating articles is shown to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing. The incident has occurred on 20.9.2023.

¶9

It is vehemently submitted that even the identity of the applicant has not been established by the Investigating Agency and it is not shown that when the applicant was not named in the FIR, how his identity has been established and the confessional statement of the applicant was recorded while he was in custody of the police, however, the same may not be proved against the applicant by virtue of the bar contained under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail in this case since 24.9.2023. He is not having any criminal history. Identically placed co-accused person, namely, Kuldeep @ Babu has already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated

¶11

04.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15356 of 2023. Charge sheet in this case has been submitted and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is surfaced that the applicant was not named in the FIR and during the course of investigation the applicant is shown to have been arrested along with some other accused persons and is shown to have confessed his guilt while in the custody of police, however, no incriminating articles is shown to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing. The applicant is in jail in this case since 24.9.2023 without any criminal antecedents. Identically placed co-accused person, namely, Kuldeep @ Babu has already been granted bail by this Court. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Aman Rajput involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.1.2024 Praveen

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aman Rajput v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Rajput v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ayush Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Bajpai Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs Ashish Rawat Asst. Director (Pmla) Directorate of Enforcement Lko.

Ravi Shankar Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raju Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others