Rajneesh Singh Urf Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72846

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3132 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajneesh Singh Urf Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bishram Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Affidavit filed on behalf of Joint Director (Prosecution), Kushinagar is taken in the record.

¶6

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶7

This is the second bail application.

¶8

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in S.T. No. 658 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2024 at Police Station Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC. The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2024.

¶9

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 11.11.2024.

¶10

The following arguments made by Sri Upendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Bishram Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Sri Suchit Tandon, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶11

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

¶12

The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

¶13

The applicant did not adopt dilatory tactics or impede the trial proceedings.

¶14

Affidavit filed on behalf of Joint Director (Prosecution), Kushinagar record that all prosecution witnesses have been examined. The stage is set for proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C./defence evidence. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing any of the witnesses.

¶15

Continued imprisonment of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Any further incarceration would be to the detriment of the defence of the applicant and contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

¶16

This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held:

¶17

"Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail.

¶18

The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

¶19

Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard."

¶20

Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case.

¶21

Learned AGA contends that the applicant has criminal history of one more case apart from the instant case.

¶22

Rejoining this issue, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a poor person and is in jail. He does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of

¶23

the status of the said criminal cases could not be obtained and stated in the first instance in the bail application. However, on the basis of records available with the learned AGA and the upon instructions from the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities. He was falsely framed in the said case. The said case does not depict any criminal trait and have no 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 wake of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant - Rajneesh Singh Urf Chhotu 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

¶29

date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶30

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 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 :- 6.5.2025 Pravin

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajneesh Singh Urf Chhotu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajneesh Singh Urf Chhotu 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases