Allahabad High Court
Rajendra vs State Of U.P. on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13072 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajendra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey,Arvind Kumar Mishra,Dharmendra Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Pathak,Uma Nath Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalji Yadav,Yashpal Yadav
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Shri Rajesh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0897 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Cant, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have assaulted the deceased person by barging into his house on 07.08.2017 at about 7:30 pm, when the informant had reached her house after tying Rakhi to his brother alongwith her nephew Dheeraj.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is in jail since 10.08.2017 and the trial is moving at an snail's pace and as on date, only two witnesses of fact have been examined i.e. PW-1 is the first informant, and PW-2 is the eye-witness Dheeraj. Learned counsel has indicated several contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the said prosecution witnesses. There is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the witnesses of fact have categorically indicated towards the applicant being the actual perpetrator of crime, although he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the period of incarceration and also the fact that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future and also considering the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Rajendra involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 22.2.2023
Ravi Kant
