Allowed

Rinkoo Sharma @ Bhupendra Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. O F U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2024BAIL/12327/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a case involving alleged assault with a 'chimta' during a sudden quarrel. Court noted no criminal history and custody since 09.09.2024 with chargesheet filed, found it a fit case for bail without expressing any view on merits, and released the applicant on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence/witnesses and attendance at trial proceedings.

Rinkoo Sharma @ Bhupendra Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78451

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12327 of 2024 Applicant :- Rinkoo Sharma @ Bhupendra Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. O F U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 294 of 2024, under sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 118(2) of the B.N.S.,Police StationGauriganj, District-Amethi.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that infact, no lethal weapon has been assigned to the applicant and it has been alleged that he by way of using 'Chimta' has attacked over the injured and the injured has received injuries. He next added that even assuming the prosecution correct as stated, it seems that in a sudden provocation, within a spur of moment, the incident has taken place thus, there is no pre-meeting of mind or any mens-rea for committing offence and therefore, the ingredients of the offences as charged, do not attract in the present case. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing since 09-09-2024 and the chargesheet has been filed and therefore, there is no possibility that the applicant will tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State

¶9

has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09-09-2024; the applicant has no previous criminal history as is explained in paragraph no. 20 of the bail application coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Rinkoo Sharma @ Bhupendra Rai involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person,

¶16

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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.11.2024 AKS

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rinkoo Sharma @ Bhupendra Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. O F U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinkoo Sharma @ Bhupendra Rai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. O F U.P. 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

Mohammad Tausif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Lalit Kumar @ Kunne Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Anurag Singh @ Shivraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Aakash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.