Robin vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:18283

Court No. - 35

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2745 of 2025

Applicant :- Robin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

This is second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed.

¶7

Heard Sri Jagadish Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.372 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 308, 34, 304 IPC, Police Station- Saraimeer, District- Azamgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 12.9.2024.

¶10

It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused, persons, Aarti, Ranjana, Reeta Devi, Savitri, Avinash, Radheyshaym and Vinay have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.9.2024, 16.12.2024, 3.1.2025 and 6.1.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32251 of 2024, 44935 of 2024, 43286 of 2024 and 45362 of 2024, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused persons, who have already been granted bail by this Court.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the application for bail but could not dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Robin , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶17

(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶20

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Krishna*

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Sharma vs State of U.P.

Ashish Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Raju Gupta vs State of U.P.

Ankit vs State of U.P.