Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Rajveer vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34386 of 2019 Applicant :- Rajveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Tripathi (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Banti, Sonu Shakya, Ravi Shakya, Rajveer, Kishan Lal and Ramveer alleging that on 24.10.2016 they killed Mukesh, brother of the complainant. He died after receiving head injury.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Ravi Shakya has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.3.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8135 of 2017 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, hence the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.7.2019 (more than one and half months) having no criminal history. General role has been assigned to all accused persons. It is not clear who is author of head injury. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and also admitted that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of co-accused-Ravi Shakya who has already been enlarged on bail.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, 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 bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Rajveer involved in Case Crime No. 584 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, Police Station-
Ghiror, District-Mainpuri be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. 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.
5. 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 OP
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajveer vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 August, 2019
Judges
  • Aniruddha Singh
Advocates
  • Mukesh Kumar Maurya