Rajendra @ Bhola vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21727

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1892 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajendra @ Bhola Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irfanul Huda,Syed Mohd. Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Irfanul Huda, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughna Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 45 of 2024, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station- Deorania, District- Bareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 29.02.2024 against applicant and others and according to FIR, on 18.07.2023 applicant has taken the son of the informant and subsequently informant received an information that his son admitted in the hospital and when he arrived at the hospital then next day, his son informed him that applicant and his one unknown associate made assault upon him through iron rod. It is further mentioned in the FIR that during treatment on 22.07.2023 son of the informant died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter after several months.

¶10

He further submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged on 29.07.2024 i.e. after more than seven months from the date of alleged incident through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 13.10.2023 i.e. after almost three months, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and this fact clearly suggests that actually applicant is innocent and FIR is based on false facts.

¶11

He further submitted that actually deceased accidentally sustained injuries and this fact is even evident from the death

¶12

memo, which has been annexed at page no. 35 of the paper book and from its perusal, it reflects that even one of the relative of the deceased informed to the hospital that deceased sustained injury by falling from motorcycle.

¶13

He further submitted that even as per statements of two eyewitnesses Prem Shankar and Punit Kumar, which have been annexed along with the instant bail application, deceased sustained injury accidentally.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.08.2024.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, as per allegation, due to assault made by applicant and one another, son of the informant sustained injury and during treatment, he died but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged after more than seven month through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved after almost three months, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR.

¶18

Further, from the statements of two eye-witnesses Prem Shankar and Punit Kumar and even from the death memo, it reflects that actually deceased accidentally sustained injury.

¶19

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 29.08.2024.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Rajendra @ Bhola be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶28

Order Date :- 14.2.2025 KK Patel

¶29

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra @ Bhola v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra @ Bhola v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya vs State of U.P.

Teeku Kushwah vs State of U.P.

Harun vs State of U.P.

Raghvendra Kumar vs State of U.P.

Babu Kushwaha vs State of U.P.