Allowed

Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024BAIL/11661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 147/148/149/302/201/34/120-B IPC for a murder where the applicant was not named in the FIR and was implicated only through a co-accused's statement. The court granted bail subject to standard conditions, without expressing any opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and non-misuse of liberty.

Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76591

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11661 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Arpit Dwivedi,Divya Dwivedi,Pankaj Kumar,Piyush Tripathi,Utkarsh Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. Learned Additioal Government Advocate has filed counter affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶8

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti) is languishing in jail since 17.08.2024 in F.I.R./Case Crime No.180 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 34 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Tarun, District-Faizabad/ Ayodhya.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶10

5. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) wherein the allegation has been levelled against seven accused persons but no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been levelled against the present applicant as he is not named in the F.I.R. The name of present applicant has been surfaced on the basis of the statement of one co-accused, namely, Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh S/o Sri Om Prakash Singh.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has shown the statement of the aforesaid co-accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh wherein he has stated that he was having his old enmity with the victim (since deceased), namely, Subham Yadav. He narrated one story that once the victim (since deceased) had fired upon the aforesaid coaccused but that fire missed, therefore, he could not receive any injury. In the aforesaid statement of the co-accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh, he has stated that he was willing to eliminate the deceased (Subham Yadav). Since their relation was inimical and was trying to find out the proper location of Subham Yadav (since deceased) so that he could kill him. One day i.e. 30.05.2024, one of his friend namely Navneet Yadav had intimated the location of Subham Yadav (since deceased) and the co-accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh had stated his friend to bring Subham Yadav at Rampur Gilantwa where he would be able to eliminate him. His friend took Shivam Yadav (since deceased) at the place where the co-accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh reached by one Swift

¶12

Dezire Car with one Sandeep Goswami along with the present applicant as well as other co-accused persons.

¶13

7. As per the statement, as soon as Subham Yadav (since deceased) had seen the co-accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh he got afraid and tried to run away but all his aforesaid friends caught him hold and the co-accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh fired on the head/ tample of Subham Yadav, resultant thereof, he died on the spot.

¶14

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the main accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh has confessed his guilt and that confession may be established before the learned trial court but at this stage of bail, it is clear that neither the present applicant has killed the victim nor was named in the F.I.R.

¶15

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the chargesheet has been filed in this case. The present applicant has explained his criminal history in para-30 of the bail application wherein he has been granted bail by the learned court below. He has undertaken on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly.

¶16

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that the present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the present applicant has been surfaced on the basis of the statement of co-accused Banti Singh @ Ranveer Singh and the undertaking that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the investigation/ trial proceedings and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

13. Let the applicant (Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti) 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:-

¶20

(i) 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.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on 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 IPC/269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶22

(iii) 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./84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 IPC/208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶23

(iv) 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./351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 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. The present applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶24

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 Suresh/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Rana @ Nitin Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Jai Narayan Bajpai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ram Kumar Chaudhari and 2 Others Vs the Special Judge (Anticorruption /Cbi, West) Lucknow and 8 Others

Rampratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Shanti Devi @ Rajkumari @ Rajkumari Vs State of Up through Prin. Secy., Home Govt of Up Lucknow

Nishu Tomar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko