Allowed¶12

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2025BAIL/4450/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; Section 483 BNSS application; Case Crime No. 0179 of 2024, P.S. Mirapur, Muzaffar Nagar; offences under Sections 103(1), 238 and added Section 3(5) BNS; custody since 07.11.2024; delay in lodging FIR; CCTV footage; recovery of plastic packet; hostile witnesses (informant, P.W.2, P.W.3); personal bond with two sureties; conditions of bail; cancellation on breach.

What did the court decide?

Release of accused-applicant Rajendra on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence; (ii) not to indulge in criminal activity; (iii) not to pressure/intimidate prosecution witnesses and to co-operate in trial; (iv) regular appearance on every date fixed by the trial court unless exempted; breach entitles the court below to cancel bail. ¶12

Rajendra vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether accused-applicant Rajendra should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 0179 of 2024 (Sections 103(1), 238 and added Section 3(5) BNS), Police Station Mirapur, District Muzaffar Nagar, under Section 483 BNSS.

¶7

Court's answer

Considering the nature of accusations, severity of punishment in the case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses and the prima facie case, but without commenting on the merits, a case for bail is made out.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed and the accused-applicant is to be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the stated conditions.

¶13

Key takeaways

In the event of breach of any of the bail conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel the bail.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 66), Ashutosh Srivastava, J. — Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4450 of 2025 under Section 483 BNSS by Rajendra, accused in Case Crime No. 0179 of 2024, P.S. Mirapur, District Muzaffar Nagar, under Sections 103(1), 238 and added Section 3(5) BNS. Applicant in custody since 07.11.2024. Defence submissions (not findings): innocence and false implication; no criminal antecedent; two-day delay in lodging FIR without explanation; no allegation against applicant in FIR; implication based on informant's statement and CCTV footage said not to connect him; post-mortem report said not to support prosecution; no independent witness of the plastic-packet recovery and chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete; during trial the informant did not support the FIR version and P.W.2 and P.W.3 turned hostile. State opposed. Considering nature of accusations, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, apprehension of tampering and prima facie case, without commenting on merits, the court held a case for bail was made out, allowed the application, and directed release on a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering, no criminal activity, no intimidation of witnesses, regular appearance), with liberty to the court below to cancel bail on breach.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116825

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4450 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ankur Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashank Singh, Advocate, brief holder of learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS. has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Rajendra, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0179 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 238 and added Section 3 (5) BNS, Police Station Mirapur, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 07.11.2024. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no allegation against the applicant in the FIR and the FIR was lodged after two days delay without giving any explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. The applicant has made accused in the present case on the basis of statement of informant and alleged CCTV footage. The alleged CCTV footage nowhere connects the applicant with the alleged offence. The post mortem examination report does not support the prosecution version. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery of plastic packet and the chain of circumstantial evidence is not completed and nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It is submitted that during trial the informant has not supported the FIR version and during cross examination P.W.2 and P.W. 3 have been turned hostile. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶9

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the first informant

¶10

have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the accused-applicant, Rajendra, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶14

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶17

iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶18

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.7.2025 v.k.updh.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra 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

Reshma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Vansh vs State of U.P.

Shobhit Sharma vs State of U.P.

Aslam vs State of U.P.

Nimesh Chauhan vs State of U.P.

Dipendra Singh vs State of U.P.