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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7677 of 2024

Rahul Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Shyam Bihari, Sunil Verma, Vineet Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Adarsh Kumar Tripathi, Gyanendra Pathak

¶8

Court No. - 12

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

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

¶11

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 1.5.2024 at 08.00 pm in the night, the informant's son Raghunandan Prasad Yadav @ Helu aged about 44 years went away from home. He used to live with Guddi Devi for the last ten years. It is alleged that on 2.5.2024 at around 07.00 am, it was informed to the complainant that the body of his son is lying near the canal. Then he went there and found his son dead. Suspicion is raised that he has been done to death at the instance of the said Guddi Devi by her accomplices.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The deceased suffered eight ante-mortem injuries. He submits that the witnesses namely, Muneshwar Prasad Pal and Baijnath Jaiswal have given the last seen evidence. Allegedly, gamchha and danda are said to have been recovered from the pointing out of the present applicant, to which there is no independent witness. It is submitted that both the alleged eye-witnesses and the complainant have been examined before the trial court as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Amongst those, the PW-2 has not supported the prosecution case during trial and the PW-3 Baijnath Jaiswal has been

¶13

BAIL No. 7677 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

discharged on the application given by one Sunil Kumar Jaiswal. There is no other fact witness left to be examined. Thus, there is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence.

¶16

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 7.5.2024 There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that the case is of circumstantial evidence; all the fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 7.5.2024 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.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Rahul Singh involved in Case Crime No. 102 of 2024, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Baundi, District- Bahraich, 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶25

BAIL No. 7677 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

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.

¶28

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶29

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

September 16, 2025 Shravan

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Mukesh Chauhan @ Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Pragyesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Aviation, Lko. and Another

Chand Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow