Allowed

Rajkumar Alias Raju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025BAIL/41529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed bail to the accused in a serious criminal case, emphasising Article 21 and relying on Supreme Court precedents, subject to stringent conditions regarding evidence tampering and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding tampering with evidence and court attendance.

Rajkumar Alias Raju vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41529 of 2025

Rajkumar Alias Raju

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Geetam Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶7

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Rajkumar Alias Raju seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.676 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 109(1), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2025. It is submitted that eleven accused persons alongwith 4-5 unknown persons including the applicant are named in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per FIR applicant alongwith other accused persons have caused injuries to the injured persons with stick, iron rod but no specific and separate role of applicant regarding causing injuries to the injured persons has been assigned either in the FIR or in the statement of the injured persons. It is argued that as per the medical report of the injured available on record lacerated wound on the injured Amit and multiple stab injury scalp deep over head on the injured Puneet have been found but the injured persons have not assigned the separate role of applicant in this case for causing multiple stab injury on the head and there is no fracture etc. on the vital part of the injured. It is further argued that iron rod was said to be recovered from the possession of applicant and applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no

¶11

BAIL No. 41529 of 2025

¶12

¶13

likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is submitted that the investigation of the present case is still going on. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶20

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶21

BAIL No. 41529 of 2025

¶22

¶23