Allowed

Rajnish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2024BAIL/937/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an accused in a case under Section 304 IPC, relying on the principle of parity as a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The court noted the applicant's lack of criminal history and the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions against witness tampering and seeking adjournments.

Rajnish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27501

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 937 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajnish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash,Amit Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shailender Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Shailender Singh who has filed vakalatnama today in court which is taken on record, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Anuj Kumar who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.2.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail No.1785 of 2024. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 20.11.2023.

¶8

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

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused Anuj Kumar having similar role has been enlarged on bail and the role of the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused.

¶10

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused Anuj Kumar has been enlarged on bail, it is a case of circumstantial evidence, prima facie chain of circumstance is incomplete,

¶11

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

6. Let the applicant Rajnish, involved in Case Crime No.653 of 2023 under section 304 I.P.C., P.S. Sandhana, district Sitapur, 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶19

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.

¶20

7. The application is allowed accordingly, on the ground of parity.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.4.2024 kkb/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajnish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

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

Santosh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Manish Sharma @ Mani Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Aman @ Golu Dhanuk vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Sectt. Lucknow

Govind Prasad vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Sandeep Chhabra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another