Allahabad High Court
Rajan Vishwakarma vs State Of U.P. on 1 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78030
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9342 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajan Vishwakarma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for State.
2. Applicant-Rajan Vishwakarma has approached this Court by way of filing present bail application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 42 of 2022, under Sections 302, 457, 380, 460, 411 IPC, Police Station Gaur, District Basti.
3. This bail application was filed on 21.12.2022 and according to order sheet earlier it was taken up for hearing on four dates, however on maximum dates matter was adjourned on request of counsel for applicant.
4. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court, a status report dated 13.03.2024 has been submitted by Trial Court that out of 33 proposed witnesses, till date only one witness has been examined and despite summons no other witness has come forward to depose. It is also mentioned in status report that against applicant seven session trials are pending having offences of robbery and under Arms Act.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that initially FIR was lodged against unknown persons for offence of attempt to murder. Later on injured succumbed to injuries and on basis of information of Informer, applicant and co-accused were arrested, who confessed crime and thereafter charge sheet was filed for above referred offences.
6. Learned counsel submits that there is no eye witness account and applicant has been falsely implicated in present case, as such there is no evidence against him. Applicant has criminal history of 13 cases, out of which few have been mentioned in application and atleast seven session trails are pending against applicant in same Court. In this regard learned counsel for applicant submits that all are false cases and applicant has been implicated after he was arrested in present case, probably on basis of confessional statement. He also submits that co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.
7. Learned AGA appearing for State has opposed the prayer for bail.
8. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal backgrounds and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e ?bail is rule and jail is exception? as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger, of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc, and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar vs State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of Jharkhand vs Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP(Crl) No.10810/2023, Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors : Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023), I am of considered opinion that present is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following grounds:-
(a) Applicant is facing trial for serious offence of murder while committing robbery in night.
(b) Applicant has long criminal history involving similar nature of offences.
(c) Court takes note of status of trial that though it is in snail speed, however, considering that applicant has long criminal history, therefore, there is likelihood that in case bail is granted, he will either try to influence the witnesses or ran away.
(d) Court also takes note the order whereby co-accused has been granted bail, however, the reasons assigned in bail order are not in terms of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar (supra) and Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar (2022)4 SCC 497.
9. The bail application is accordingly rejected. However, in case trial is not proceeded much within a period of eight months from today, applicant will have liberty to approach this Court or Trial Court concerned, as advised, alongwith status of trial.
10. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
AK
