Allowed

Rajendra Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024BAIL/2861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused challenging a murder charge. Based on unexplained delays in witness statements, conflicting testimonies, and the grant of bail to co-accused, the Court found it a fit case for bail on grounds of parity.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific undertakings against tampering.

Rajendra Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29358

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2861 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Kumar Yadav,Adesh Kumar,Vishnu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

It is alleged in the FIR that on 14.05.2023 at around 2:00 pm, the accused persons named in the FIR have killed the son of the informant and hanged him from a mango tree. It has been further alleged that the cycle of the son was stolen by three accused persons and when the deceased demanded his cycle, then they have committed this murder and hanged him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eye witness to the incident. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The alleged eye witness Pawan is not the eye witness at all. The incident is of 14.05.2023 and the statement of Pawan was taken on 07.06.2023. The prosecution has failed to explain as to why the statement of the alleged eye witness Pawan was taken after 22-23 days. The testimony of Pawan has been made doubtful by the another eye witness i.e. Munna Yadav who in his statement has stated that as soon as the deceased was caught hold by the accused persons, Pawan ran away. Statement of Munna Yadav is also doubtful as according to the statement of Pawan, after running away from the place of occurrence, he went home and

¶10

told about the incident and thereafter, Munna Yadav came at the place of occurrence and saw that his nephew/deceased was lying in the vacant land in front of a plot. He has further stated that neck of the deceased was pressed by the accused persons and after seeing this, he went to the village and called his brother Vipin Yadav and other villagers and again went at the place of occurrence where they found all three accused persons committing crime.

¶11

It is further submitted that this statement again is highly improbable as after committing crime, no one will wait at the place of occurrence. The contents of the statement of the alleged independent witness Munna Lal that Pawan went to home and told about the incident and thereafter he reached at the place of occurrence and saw his nephew/deceased lying on the land and thereafter he went to the village and called his brother and other villagers and again went at the place of occurrence where they saw the accused persons committing crime on the spot, is also highly improbable.

¶12

It has been further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons. Cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation and antermortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.05.2023 without having any previous criminal antecedent.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

It is lastly submitted that co-accused Romeo & Raju Yadav have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.01.2024 & 3040 of 2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.15329 of 2023 & 3040 of 2024 respectively. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of aforesaid co-

¶15

accused persons.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

This Court has also noticed that in the postmortem report hyoid bone has been found normal and no abnormality has been detected in it and therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said a case of strangulation.

¶18

On due consideration to the conflicting statements of the alleged eye witnesses and general allegation levelled by them in their statements as well as considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.05.2023 without having any previous criminal antecedent so also the fact that applicant seeks parity with the bail orders of co-accused Romeo & Raju Yadav (supra) and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of parity .

¶20

Let the applicant, Rajendra Rawat , involved in Case Crime/FIR No.135/2023, under Sections 302/201/34 IPC, Police Station - Para, District - Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶24

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iv) 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.

¶26

(v) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(vi) 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.

¶28

Order Date :- 10.4.2024

¶29

Saurabh Yadav/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Umashankar Yadav @ Bander vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Salman vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mohd. Shamim @ Laddan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko