Robin vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23210

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2410 of 2025

Applicant :- Robin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prem Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶7

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2023 at Police Station-Binauli District- Baghpat under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 21.10.2023.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 12.12.2024.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Prem Narayan Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Ranjeet Sagar, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

The deceased went missing on 15.10.2023.

¶11

The FIR was lodged on 16.10.2023.

¶12

Delay in lodgement of the FIR in the facts of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶13

The substance of the prosecution case in the FIR was that the deceased had left his house in the evening of 15.10.2023 and did not return thereafter.

¶14

The applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶15

The body of the deceased was found near the river bank on 20.10.2023. The inquest report was drawn up on 20.10.2023.

¶16

The applicant was nominated in the statement of coaccused made before the police authorities while in the custody of the latter. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is inadmissible in evidence.

¶17

There is no direct evidence against the applicant.

¶18

The applicant was not last seen with the deceased at a time proximate to the death of the latter.

¶19

No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant.

¶20

The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete.

¶21

The applicant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 25.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9640 of 2024.

¶22

The applicant has explained his criminal history. It is also contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat

¶23

for the police authorities. The applicant has been falsely nominated in a number of cases only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

¶24

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶25

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant- Robin be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶27

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶28

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶29

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613

¶30

of 2023).

¶31

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties, or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶32

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Vandit

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Robin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jakir vs State of U.P.

Ankit Kumar vs State of U.P.

Vishna Devi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shrinivas vs State of U.P.

Amit Alias Marshal vs State of U.P.

Chand Babu vs State of U.P. and 3 Others