Allowed

Rajjan Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC14 May 2025BAIL/9422/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under sections 302, 201, 34, 406 and 420 IPC arising from death of a man lured on promise of arranged marriage. Court noted delay of seven days in FIR, CDR location discrepancy and no prior criminal history, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rajjan Mishra released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding trial attendance and non-tampering.

Rajjan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28148

¶2

Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9422 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajjan Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Babu,Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Ripu Daman Shahi,Upendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 266 of 2024 under sections 302, 201, 34, 406 and 420 of IPC, P.S.- Ramnagar, District - Barabanki.

¶6

As per the prosecution story, the first information report was lodged on 21.4.2024 by the complainant namely, Vijay Kumar S/o Mangulal and it was alleged that the applicant Rajjan Mishra had promised to complainant's brother Awadhesh Kumar Mishra for his marriage by arranging a girl and told him about expenses i.e. 1.5 Lakhs. It has also been alleged that on 13.4.2024 the complainant's brother went out from the house and made telephonic call to the applicant and said that he is coming with Saaman for Vidai and subsequently, Awadhesh Kumar Mishra deceased went to the address and in the meantime, this message was also intimated to Paras Mishra, the brother of deceased and when the deceased did not come back, the complainant tried to locate him while calling him on telephone and once he did not reply, on the basis of doubt, the complainant went to meet the applicant, but he was absent and while coming from there, he was informed that there was one dead body of a person lying near Sumali River and on 14.4.2024, the said dead body was recovered and thereafter, the first information report was lodged on 21.4.2024.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the present case is of circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness of the incident. He submits that admittedly the dead body of the brother of the informant was recovered on 14.4.2024 which was well-within knowledge of the applicant, but the first information report was lodged on 21.4.2024 i.e. after about seven days of the alleged incident and no plausible explanation is given which clearly indicates that the first information report has been lodged after thought. He next added

¶8

that the motive assigned to the applicant for committing murder is very weak. He also added that the prosecution may come with the case that it is last seen matter whereas, there is no proximity as the applicant was lastly seen at 16 hours and the incident is said to have taken place at about 7:o clock. He next added that the on the basis of suspicion, the applicant has been named. He added that the applicant and the deceased were wellknown to each other and it is not unnatural that he has called on telephone forty times. He also drawn attention that the CDR location is evident that he was in Badosarai on 13.4.2024 whereas, the dead body was found lying nearby Sumali river. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history except apart a case under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act. He has also drawn attention towards the co-accused that he has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8835 of 2024. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.4.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and there is ample evidence against him. He added that this is a case of circumstantial evidence whereas, after the investigation, the prosecution has succeeded to channelized the story of the prosecution. He next added that the applicant was with the deceased at 4 pm and he was lastly seen at that very point of time after passing of 3 hours, the incident has taken place, thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that it is the case of circumstantial evidence whereas, this Court prima facie finds that the story of prosecution has failed to channelised the story. Further there is no explanation of delay in lodging the first information report after 7 days in an event the applicant was lastly seen and the information with respect to enmity with the present applicant and deceased and motive was well within the knowledge of the informant. Prima facie, the first information report seems to be lodged after thought. This Court has also considered the fact that the location of the applicant was in Badosarai on 13.4.2024 whereas, the dead body was found lying nearby Sumali river in Malwapur village. Further, the applicant has no previous criminal history except one and he is languishing in jail since 23.4.2024 coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Rajjan Mishra involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He 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;

¶15

(3) 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.5.2025/Mayank

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajjan Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjan Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Brijesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy., Govt. of U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dr. Shaleen Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Anotehr

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

Bablu @ Badlu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secretariat Lko.and Another

Lal Singh @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others