High Court

Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11010 of 2024 Applicant :- Tinain @ Raj Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Pandey,Abhay Dwivedi,Mukesh Kumar Mishra,Rajan Mishra,Varun Vishal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release the applicants on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.223 of 2024, under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S.-Qaiserganj, District - Bahraich. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that when the informant was out of station for labour work, the applicants came to the residence of his father and asked for repayment of loan of about Rs.30,000/- and they brutally beaten the father of the informant as a result of which he received serious injuries and he was taken to the Primary Health Centre whereafter he was referred to the District Hospital wherein he was declared dead. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. He submits that the F.I.R. is delayed by five days and no plausible explanation is given thereof. He added that another son of the deceased is alleged to be present on the spot at the time of incident but the applicant no.2 had taken the deceased to the hospital, which is evident from the CD Parcha No.2 dated 1.7.2024 appended as Annexure No.4 along with the bail application. He next submits that the injury report does not corroborate the allegations made in the F.I.R. and due to some animosity, names of the applicants have been roped in the F.I.R. whereas the fact is that the deceased fell down from the roof of the house and received injuries and the applicants came to rescue and the applicant no.2 took the deceased to the hospital but the F.I.R. has been lodged wherein the applicants are named. He next submits that the applicants are suffering for their no fault and they were never involved in committing the offence and there are material contradictions in the story of the prosecution. He next submits that charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of his tampering with the evidence. Further submitted that the applicants have a case criminal history which has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit and they are languishing in jail since 30.6.2024 and in case, the applicants are granted bail, they would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicants are named in the F.I.R.and one of the independent eye witnesses has also named the applicants, as such, the applicants are involved in committing the aforesaid offence and they are not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the F.I.R. is delayed by five days and no explanation is given. This Court has noticed that from Parcha No.2, it is evident that the applicant no.2 had taken the deceased to the hospital. It has also been noticed that the son of the deceased is alleged to be present on the spot but he did not take his father to the hospital which indicates that presence of the son of the deceased is highly doubtful. Further charge sheet has been filed and there is one case criminal history of the applicants explained in rejoinder affidavit; and the applicants are languishing in jail since 30.6.2024 and they have undertaken that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicants Tinain @ Raj Kumar and Ram Chander @ Chander involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. They shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Ram Murti

Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11010 of 2024 Applicant :- Tinain @ Raj Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Pandey,Abhay Dwivedi,Mukesh Kumar Mishra,Rajan Mishra,Varun Vishal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release the applicants on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.223 of 2024, under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S.-Qaiserganj, District - Bahraich. As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that when the informant was out of station for labour work, the applicants came to the residence of his father and asked for repayment of loan of about Rs.30,000/- and they brutally beaten the father of the informant as a result of which he received serious injuries and he was taken to the Primary Health Centre whereafter he was referred to the District Hospital wherein he was declared dead. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated. He submits that the F.I.R. is delayed by five days and no plausible explanation is given thereof. He added that another son of the deceased is alleged to be present on the spot at the time of incident but the applicant no.2 had taken the deceased to the hospital, which is evident from the CD Parcha No.2 dated 1.7.2024 appended as Annexure No.4 along with the bail application. He next submits that the injury report does not corroborate the allegations made in the F.I.R. and due to some animosity, names of the applicants have been roped in the F.I.R. whereas the fact is that the deceased fell down from the roof of the house and received injuries and the applicants came to rescue and the applicant no.2 took the deceased to the hospital but the F.I.R. has been lodged wherein the applicants are named. He next submits that the applicants are suffering for their no fault and they were never involved in committing the offence and there are material contradictions in the story of the prosecution. He next submits that charge sheet has been filed, as such, there is no possibility of his tampering with the evidence. Further submitted that the applicants have a case criminal history which has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit and they are languishing in jail since 30.6.2024 and in case, the applicants are granted bail, they would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicants are named in the F.I.R.and one of the independent eye witnesses has also named the applicants, as such, the applicants are involved in committing the aforesaid offence and they are not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the F.I.R. is delayed by five days and no explanation is given. This Court has noticed that from Parcha No.2, it is evident that the applicant no.2 had taken the deceased to the hospital. It has also been noticed that the son of the deceased is alleged to be present on the spot but he did not take his father to the hospital which indicates that presence of the son of the deceased is highly doubtful. Further charge sheet has been filed and there is one case criminal history of the applicants explained in rejoinder affidavit; and the applicants are languishing in jail since 30.6.2024 and they have undertaken that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicants Tinain @ Raj Kumar and Ram Chander @ Chander involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. They shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Ram Murti