Rajindar vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45083

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9916 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajindar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri S.K. Singh Parmar, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri S.K. Singh Parmar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 157 of 2024, under Sections 49, 191(2), 103(1), 115(2), 352 BNS, Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 21.11.2024 against the applicant and others and according to the FIR on 22.11.2024 at about 10:30 pm in the night with intention to grab property, applicant who is brother of the husband of the informant alongwith his other family members including his parents made assault upon the husband of the informant through wooden sticks and due to the assault made by them, he died.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the real brother of the deceased and however, in the FIR general allegation of assault has been made against all the accused including applicant but when the statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then she made specific allegation that due to the assault made by co-accused Vinod her husband died and similar statements were also given by other eye witnesses.

¶11

He further submitted that however, from the post mortem report, it reflects, injured sustained as many as 4 injuries but he sustained only single injury on his head and he died due to head injury and as per the statements of the eye witnesses recorded during investigation, role of causing this injury has been attributed to co-

¶12

accused Vinod.

¶13

He further submitted that it appears only being one of the brother of the deceased, applicant has been made accused in the present matter alongwith his other family members including his parents.

¶14

He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 9.1.2025.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

However, applicant is real brother of the deceased and FIR of the present case was lodged by his bhabhi i.e. wife of the deceased and as per FIR, applicant alongwith four others who were also his family members made assault through wooden sticks upon the deceased due to which he died but when the statements of the informant and other eye witnesses were recorded during investigation then they specifically made allegation against coaccused Vinod that he committed the murder of the deceased.

¶18

Further, however, from the post mortem report, it reflects, deceased sustained as many as four injuries but as per autopsy surgeon, deceased died due to head injury and he sustained only one head injury which appears to be attributed to co-accused Vinod.

¶19

Further, applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 9.1.2025.

¶20

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Rajindar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the

¶23

following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶29

Order Date :- 2.4.2025

¶30

Ankita

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajindar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajindar 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

Similar cases

Pappu @ Serwari vs State of U.P.

Roshan vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Patel vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nibbu Lal Alias Rajesh vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Prasad Rajak vs State of U.P.

Sarwan Vishwakarma vs State of U.P.