Allowed

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2025CRLA/2575/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convicted appellant sought bail pending his criminal appeal against a conviction for attempt to murder and related offences under Sections 307/34 IPC and Arms Act. Court noted the cross-case nature, general role assigned, clean bail record during trial, and unlikely early appeal hearing, and granted conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted pending appeal; personal bond plus two sureties; half of fine stayed, other half to be deposited within one month; appeal listed after four weeks.

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2575 of 2025

Rajendra Prasad

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Manoj Kumar Mishra, Ajay Kumar
	Verma, Piyush Tripathi, Shubham
	Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A., Rajesh Kumar

¶9

Court No. - 15

¶10

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

[Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025 (Bail Application)]

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant/appellant of the instant criminal appeal, who is convict of Sessions Trial No. 152 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 172 of 2015, under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, and sentenced him for maximum term of ten years rigorous imprisonment pertaining to Section 307/34 IPC with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of the instant appeal.

¶14

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that this is a cross case and both the parties sustained injuries. He submits that general role has been assigned to all the accused persons, including the present applicant/appellant. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the true facts in the case. The learned trial court has not properly considered the whole evidence available on record and the findings are also against the evidence on record. He has also shown other perversity in the

¶15

CRLA No. 2575 of 2025

¶16

¶17

impugned judgment and order.

¶18

In addition, he argued that the applicant/appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty of bail and there is no previous criminal history of applicant/appellant and he is languishing in jail since 30.07.2025 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and will always cooperate in the hearing of the appeal. He has also submitted that there is unlikelihood of hearing of appeal in near future, therefore, the applicant/appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned AGA appearing for the State has refuted the contentions aforesaid and submits that there is no discrepancy in the impugned Judgment and order passed by the trial court and, thus, the applicant/appellant is not entitled for any relief.

¶20

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that this is a cross case; general role has been assigned to all the accused persons, including the present applicant/appellant; the applicant/appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty of bail and he is languishing in jail since 30.07.2025 having no previous criminal history and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and will always cooperate in the hearing of the appeal. He has also submitted that there is unlikelihood of hearing of appeal in near future, therefore, the applicant/appellant may be enlarged on bail. Therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶21

In the result, the bail application of the applicant/appellant is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant/appellant, Rajendra Prasad , involved in the aforesaid case 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:-

¶23

(i) Half of the fine, imposed by the trial court, shall remain stayed and remaining half amount of fine shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant within a period of one month from his actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited.

¶24

CRLA No. 2575 of 2025

¶25

¶26

(ii) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶27

(iii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the trial court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶30

[Order on Appeal]

¶31

List the appeal after four weeks.

¶32

October 6, 2025 kkv/

¶33

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶34

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

Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad 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

Preetam Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Anjali Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ajay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home and 2 Others

Rohit Kumar Rawat (Changed Name) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohit Kumar Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another