Allowed

Rijju @ Talim v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024BAIL/7843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Rijju @ Talim in a case involving offences under sections 395 and 412 of the IPC. The court considered his criminal history, absence from the FIR, and undertaking to cooperate, granting bail subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence in court and conduct during trial.

Rijju @ Talim Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81350

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7843 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rijju @ Talim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Chaurasiya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shubham Chaurasiya,learned counsel for the applicant, 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 the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 239 of 2016, under sections 395/412 of the I.P.C.,Police Station-Bakshi Ka Talab, District -Lucknow.

¶8

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 the applicant is not named in the first information report and the police has planted him without there being any cogent piece of evidence. He next added that the applicant is languishing jail since 28-05-2016 as there was no Pairokar of the applicant and the trial will take considerable long period of time to be concluded as only one witness has been examined as yet out of 8 witnesses. He submits that there are seven cases criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained and 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.

¶9

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

¶10

of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024 decided on 9 August, 2024 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb ( 2021(3) SCC 713) and submitted that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the Judgments abovesaid.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are as many as seven cases criminal history of the applicant and after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

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 28-05-20126; seven cases criminal history of the applicant has been explained; the applicant is not named in the first information report and the trial has not been concluded as yet 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Let the applicant- Rijju @ Talim, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each

¶15

in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 5.12.2024 AKS

¶24

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

Rijju @ Talim v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rijju @ Talim v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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.