Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024BAIL/11620/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought bail in a case under Sections 74, 352, 64 and 351(3) BNS, alleging false implication through a counter-blast FIR stemming from a family dispute. Noting that only a Section 74 allegation appeared initially and that medical examination did not support the fingering allegation first raised later, the court granted bail with conditions requiring cooperation in investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Case Crime No.274 of 2024 on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Rajesh Kumar Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74146

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11620 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Nishad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vivek Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed second supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of the present applicant, the same is taken on record.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 07.10.2024 in Case Crime No.274 of 2024, under Sections 74, 352, 64, 351 (3) of B.N.S., Police Station – Fatehpur Chaurasi, District – Unnao.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the impugned FIR is a counter-blast of one FIR bearing FIR No.0221 of 2024, Under Section 74 of the B.N.S., Police Station – Fatehpur Chaurasi, District – Unnao, dated 28.07.2024, which was lodged by one distant relative of the present applicant against one Ghanshyam whereas the present FIR has been lodged by the family member of accused- Ghanshyam against the present applicant. Initially, no allegations have been levelled against the present applicant and only allegation relating to Section 74 B.N.S. has been levelled. While recording statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S., only allegation relating to Section 74 of B.N.S. has been levelled but while recording statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., the allegation of fingering has been levelled. The medical examination report did not support the allegation. The informant/ prosecutrix is a married lady of 37 years and on account of dispute between the families, the FIRs have been lodged from both the sides. The applicant has explained his criminal history. Charge sheet has not been filed. The applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall abide by all terms and conditions of

¶10

the bail order. Further, he shall cooperate in the investigation and after filing of police report, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that the impugned FIR is a counter-blast to the FIR lodged by one distant relative of the present applicant against one Ghanshyam whereas the present FIR has been lodged by the family member of accusedGhanshyam against the present applicant; initially, only allegation relating to Section 74 of B.N.S. has been levelled and while recording statement under Section 180 BNSS also, only allegation relating to Section 74 B.N.S. has been levelled but while recording statement under Section 183 BNSS, the allegation of fingering has been levelled; medical examination report did not support the allegation; the informant/ prosecutrix is a married lady of 37 years and on account of dispute between the families, the FIRs have been lodged from both the sides and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the investigation and after filing the police report, he shall cooperate in trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let applicant- Rajesh Kumar Nishad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) As soon as the present applicant is released from jail, he shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned within 48 hours for the purpose to cooperate in the investigation and he shall also cooperate in the investigation till completion of investigation and filing of police report. Thereafter, he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶18

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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 RBS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Anuj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Sachin Kumar Yadav @ Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Alias Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs U.O.I.Thru.Secy.Ministry of Railway and Ors.

Anwar and Another Vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Rajesh Kumar Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.