Allowed

Nikhil Rajpoot v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024BAIL/7364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application filed by Nikhil Rajpoot regarding Sessions Case No. 128 of 2024 involving Sections 392 and 411 IPC. Applicant claimed innocence and sought parity with a co-accused already on bail. Court granted bail after considering criminal history and Article 21, subject to conditions including sureties and strict conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Nikhil Rajpoot on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Nikhil Rajpoot vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47002

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7364 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nikhil Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 128 of 2024, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that one co-accused Kundan Rajpoot has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.6.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6267 of 2024 and the role of the present applicant is identical to that of Kundan Rajpoot and thus, he is seeking parity. He submits that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the investigation proceedings. There is one case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 12.5.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that there are specific allegations against the applicant for committing offence and after thorough investigation, it was found that he was involved in committing the offence. However, he could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused Kundan Rajpoot has already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that identically situated co-

¶11

accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court; charge sheet has been filed; there is one case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.5.2024.

¶12

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 case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Nikhil Rajpoot 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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

¶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

¶20

confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 10.7.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

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

Nikhil Rajpoot v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Rajpoot v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Mayank Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Deptt. and 6 Others

Vipin Prakash Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. and 3 Others

Pramod Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Smt. Shanti Devi and 3 Others vs State Cadre Authority U.P. Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies Lko. and 4 Others

Lalji Yadav and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sadhusaran vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home