Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Rajabhaiya vs State Of U.P. on 3 December, 2019

Author: Raj Beer Singh

Bench: Raj Beer Singh





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3406 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Rajabhaiya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- B.N.Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
 

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 500-A/2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 307 IPC, police station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application was rejected by Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar, J. vide order dated 20.07.2017.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant of the case is father of deceased and he was not in jail at that time and, thus, all of his version is based on hearsay material. It was further pointed out that in fact, regarding alleged incident, an FIR was lodged vide crime no. 500/2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 336, 333, 353, 504, 506 IPC, 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substances Act by concerned Jailer against deceased Prince Ahmad, Nazir and 11 others and in that FIR, applicant is not named as an accused. After registration of that FIR, complainant of present case has lodged cross FIR against applicant and others. It was submitted that both sides have sustained injuries in the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submitted that though applicant was a previous convict and was undergoing sentence for seven years, awarded in a case under Section 365 IPC, but that sentence has already been completed in the year 2013 and now, the applicant is in judicial custody since March, 2010. It was further submitted that co-accused Krishna Kumar Yadav alias Krishna and Karan Dhobi alias Ram Karan have already been granted bail by different Benches of this Court, copies of which have been produced and the same are taken on record and that the role assigned to the applicant is similar to that of co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail. It was submitted that in view of long period of incarceration of about nine years, bail application of applicant cannot be rejected merely on the ground that applicant is a previous convict. Learned counsel has also referred the cases of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in 2018 (3) SCC 22 and Sanjay Chandra vs. C.B.I. reported in 2012 (1) SCC 40. It was also submitted that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR and he is a previous convict. However, this position has not been disputed that applicant is in judicial custody in this case since the year 2010.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody, gravity of offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the second bail application is hereby allowed.

Let the applicant Rajabhaiya involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant will not try to contact, threat or otherwise influence the complainant, victim or his/ her family members or any of the witness of the case.

Order Date :- 3.12.2019 Anand