Allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2024CRLA/1996/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to an appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC for abetment to suicide, noting the suicide occurred at the deceased's parental home and trial was unlikely to conclude soon.

What did the court decide?

Released on a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear regularly, not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1996 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Shitla Prasad Tripathi,Arvind Kumar Pathak,Ratnesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

Order on appeal

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the trial court record.

¶9

List thereafter.

¶10

In the meantime, State may file counter affidavit.

¶11

Order on Bail Application (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024)

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶13

Instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 06.06.2024.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He further submitted that death of the deceased occurred at her parental house and this fact has been ignored by the trial Court. He submits that there is no proximity so far as the abetment to commit suicide by the deceased and the trial Court has also failed to find out any evidence with respect to any CDR report etc. He next submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty of bail. The appellant undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in hearing of the appeal.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. for the State has also opposed the contention of the appellant and submitted that after thorough consideration of all the evidences the trial Court has passed the order dated 06.06.2024 and has convicted the appellant/applicant under

¶16

Section 306 IPC. Thus no interference is warranted.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that suicide was committed by the deceased at her parental house and it seems that proximity has not been considered by the trial Court. Further the appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. Furthermore the appellant/applicant is in jail since 06.06.2024 and there seems to be no hope with respect to conclusion of trial in the near future,hence, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶18

Let the appellant Rajesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforementioned sessions trial, during the pendency of appeal 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:-

¶19

The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶20

The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶21

The applicant-appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶22

The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶23

It is made clear that fine is not stayed.

¶24

On acceptance of bail bonds, the court concerned shall transmit the photo stat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶25

Order Date :- 24.6.2024 Vipul

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

M/S Aegis Ltd. Thru. Deputy Manager Mr. Suryanand Tiwari vs Appellate Authority,Director in-Charge,E.S.I.C. Lko. and Another

Karam Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shatrohan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue) Lko. and 10 Others

Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy./Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ravi Kumar Shukla and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others