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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Tejendra to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024 (P.S. Soron, District Kasganj) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses during trial; (ii) appearance before the trial court on fixed dates unless personal presence exempted. Trial court directed to fix sureties per this Court's judgement in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) and to ensure the granted bail is not frustrated by arbitrary surety demands or onerous conditions unrelated to the applicant's socioeconomic status.

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Tejendra should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj, under Sections 103(1), 109, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(3) and 352 B.N.S. +4 more

Court's answer

The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by the learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail.

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the preceding discussion, and expressly without making any observations on the merits of the case, the court reached its conclusion on the bail application.

Key takeaways

The bail application is allowed.ratio¶19
The applicant Tejendra is to 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.ratio¶20
Conditions imposed in the interest of justice: (i) the applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial; and (ii) the applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 5 (Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.) — CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 591 of 2025; Order Date 9.1.2025. Bail granted to applicant Tejendra, in jail since 13.07.2024, in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024, Police Station Soron, District Kasganj, under Sections 103(1), 109, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(3) and 352 B.N.S.; the trial court had rejected his bail application on 10.10.2024. Arguments found incapable of satisfactory refutation by the learned AGA-I: the FIR assigns only a vague and general role to the applicant; the two deceased died when run over by tractors; the applicant was not identified as the principal offender who drove the tractor or inflicted grievous injuries; his role is distinguishable from the principal offenders including Hari Om; parity sought with co-accused enlarged on bail by this Court's orders dated 15.10.2024 (Bail Appln. No. 37339 of 2024) and 09.12.2024 (No. 43989 of 2024); no criminal history apart from this case; not a flight risk and cooperative. Bail allowed without any observations on the merits, on a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence/influencing witnesses and requiring attendance on trial dates; trial court directed to fix sureties in light of this Court's judgement in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) and to ensure the bail right is not frustrated by arbitrary or socioeconomically unrelated surety demands.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4778

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 591 of 2025

Applicant :- Tejendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia,Diwan Saifullah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 311 of 2024 at Police Station-Soron District-Kasganj under Sections 103(1), 109, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 351(3), 352 B.N.S. The applicant is in jail since 13.07.2024.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 10.10.2024.

The following arguments made by Shri Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia, learned counsel and Shri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

The FIR assigns a vague and general role to the applicant in the offence.

The two deceased persons had died when they were run over by tractors.

The applicant has not been identified as the principal offender who drove the tractor over the deceased persons causing their deaths or inflicted any grievous injuries to the injured persons.

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 15.10.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37339 of 2024.

The role of the applicant is distinguishable from the principal offenders including Hari Om.

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 09.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43989 of 2024.

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

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

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

application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Tejendra 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:-

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

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

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).

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.

Order Date :- 9.1.2025 Vandit

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