Disposed

Shaiki @ Rohit Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2025CRLA/3755/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant convicted under Sections 323, 304, 201, 504 IPC sought bail pending his criminal appeal. Counsel argued conviction rested on surmises with no eyewitness evidence; the State opposed but could not confront the factual submissions. Noting he did not misuse bail during trial and the appeal was unlikely to be heard soon, the court granted bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shaiki @ Rohit Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3755 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Shaiki @ Rohit Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- S M Singh Royekwar,Surya Vijay Singh,Vaibhav Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2024- for bail

¶6

Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed by the appellant Shaiki @ Rohit Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 667 of 2017 arising out of case crime No.26 of 2015 under Sections 323, 304, 201, 504 of IPC, police station Gudamba, District Lucknow.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is that the the accused applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motives. He has further submitted that conviction of the accused applicant/appellant recorded by the trial court is against the weight of the evidence, which is based on surmises and conjectures and therefore the same is perverse. He further submits that the first information report was lodged by Amit Singh P.W. 1 who is stated that the incident was informed to him by Ratan Chaubey on 26.1.2015 at 6 in the morning that his nephew Om Prakash has got injured and when he reached the hospital it was informed to him that the incident related to 10 pm. on 25.1.2014. The said Ratan Chaubey is not an eye witness of the said incident. He has further submitted that P.W. 2 Mohd. Sakin has not identified the appellant during the trail and that there is no eye witness of the said incident and accordingly there is no evidence on record stating about any role of the applicant/appellant and, therefore, submits that the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the co-convicts.He has further submitted that the accused was on bail during the trial and he never misused the liberty of bail granted to him during the trial and further that he is in jail since 13.11.2024 and does not have any criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant-applicant, on the ground that, the appellant-applicant has committed a serious offence and has been rightly convicted by the court below, and the appellant-applicant is not entitled

¶10

for bail. However, he could not confront the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.

¶11

On due consideration of the over all facts and circumstances of the case and also that during trial he was on bail and he did not misuse the liberty of bail and the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future, this Court is of the view that the case of bail is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the appellant-applicant Shaiki alias Rohit Singh alias Rohit Kumar Singh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) Fifty percent of fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited by the appellant-applicant within a period of two months from the date of his release and remaining fifty percent fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 30.4.2025 RKM.

¶20

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

Shaiki @ Rohit Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shaiki @ Rohit Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sharda Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tukeshwar vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lko and Ors.

Suraj Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vikas Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Triloki and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Faruk Alias Chunne vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others