Allowed

Sunil Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025BAIL/653/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail in a firing case under BNS provisions where the firing role was attributed to co-accused Kundan Yadav and injury was on a non-vital part; applicant in jail since 11.11.2024 with no criminal history. Bail allowed with conditions including undertakings against tampering and witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sunil Rajbhar to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Sunil Rajbhar vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13949

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 653 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Rajbhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 01.11.2024 at about 11.30 a verbal spat took place between informant and Sujit Rajbhar and accused persons named in the F.I.R. It is further alleged that co-accused Kundan Yadav opened fire from illegal weapon upon Marjad Rajbhar who sustained fire arm injury.

¶8

Learned counsel for accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Kundan and the injury is on non vital part. Applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit. It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 11.11.2024 and if facility of bail is granted, there is no apprehension that he will flee from the judicial process and he will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will cooperate in speedy trial of the case.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶10

On due consideration to the fact that prima facie role of the

¶11

applicant appears to be distinct from the role of co-accused Kundan who has been assigned the role of firing and there is no injury on vital part of the victim; there is no other criminal history against the applicant as well as considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.11.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sunil Rajbhar , involved in Case Crime No. 360 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 352, 351(2), 109(1), 115(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Cholapur, District-Varanasi, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) 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. 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.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall submit an undertaking on affidavit in terms of Section 19 (4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities

¶19

(Prevention) Act, 1986 that he will not indulge in any case for or misuse the liberty of bail.

¶20

(vi) 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vii) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 SY

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunil Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Rajbhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kajal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shahnoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ankit and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tulla Alias Imran Khan vs State of U.P.

Rahul @ Panda vs State of U.P.

Ajay Gupta vs State of U.P.