Allowed¶12

Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024BAIL/12629/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:81477; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 12629 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; decided 5.12.2024. Bail application under sections 109, 3(5), 352 BNS and 3/25 Arms Act, Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, P.S. Jethwara, District Pratapgarh; allegation of firing at police party with no injury; applicant in jail since 19.08.2024 with criminal history explained in para 30; bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties with conditions; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to specified conditions. ¶12

Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi, should be released on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024 (sections 109, 3(5), 352 BNS and 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Jethwara, District Pratapgarh).

¶6

Court's answer

Considering the submissions of both sides, nature of accusation, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and the larger mandate of Article 21, and without expressing any view on the merits, the court found it a fit case of bail.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶12

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to the condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating or pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise, during investigation or trial.ratio¶13
If the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and, to secure his presence, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and he fails to appear on the date fixed therein, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC; absence without sufficient cause on evidence dates may also invite action under Section 229-A IPC.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Shree Prakash Singh, J., 5.12.2024): Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi, in custody since 19.08.2024 in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024 under sections 109, 3(5), 352 BNS and 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Jethwara, District Pratapgarh, released on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount. Court noted the criminal history explained in paragraph 30 of the bail application and that it was a case of no injury; bail granted without expressing any view on merits, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence or pressurizing witnesses; presence at trial, failing which action under Sections 229-A/174-A IPC and Section 82 Cr.P.C.; court below free to cancel bail on breach). Observations confined to disposal of the bail application.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81477

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12629 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Avinash Srivastava 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. 213 of 2024, under sections 109, 3(5), 352 BNS and 3/25 of Arms Act Police Station- Jethwara, District - Pratapgarh.

¶7

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that as per the prosecution story,the applicant had opened fire over the police party, but, no one got injured on the side of the police. He submits that there is a case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in paragraph no. 30 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 19.08.2024. He 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 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶9

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 19.08.2024; there is a case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in paragraph no. 30 of the bail application; it is a case of no injury coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

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

¶11

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- Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi 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, 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

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.12.2024 Mayank

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sharvan Kumar and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sachin Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Virendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue , Lucknow and Others

Rajendra Patel @ Bacholi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Vijay Kant Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shailesh Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.