High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19118 Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1218 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Lakhan Rathore Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Harshit Gupta,Ramanand Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Ms. Pranjali Omar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Alok Sharma, learned A.G.A.1st and perused the record. 2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Sessions Trial No.189 of 2022 (State Vs Ravinder Pandey & Ors) arising out of Case Crime No.34 of 2022, under Sections 302, 436 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kailiya, District-Jalaun. 3. This is the second bail application. First bail application of applicant was rejected on 1.4.2024 and the reasons assigned therein are mentioned hereinafter: " 8. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal background 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 and Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors: Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023), therefore, I am of considered opinion that present is not a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following reasons:- (i) Victim in his dying declaration while suffering with 65 percent Deep Thermal Burn injury present over the body has mentioned name of applicant as 'Fauji' with specific averment that he has a business of 'Tent', a fact which has not been denied. (ii) Victim in his dying declaration has also specified a motive that applicant has not returned Rs.10 Lakhs given by the victim as well as applicant was jealous with prosperity of his business. (iii) During investigation, other witnesses have also disclosed the identity of applicant by his name as Ram Lakhan Rathore as well as that he has been assigned specific role of setting ablaze the victim. 9. Considering the above specific role of applicant and that there are serious allegations of causing death of victim, this bail application is rejected." 4. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court learned Trial Court has submitted a status report dated 6.2.2025 that out of proposed 23 prosecution witnesses, five have been examined and the statement of P.W.6 is underway and trial could be concluded within a period of 7 to 8 months. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant arguing her first case submits that most relevant evidence could be be the Dying Declaration, however it is not supported by the statement of witnesses recorded so far and as such prosecution case has become doubtful and she further submits that witnesses of fact have already been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood that applicant may influence any witness. 6, Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 24.7.2022 i.e. about two and a half years. 7. Learned A.G.A.1st has opposed the bail and submits that since trial could be concluded within a period of 7 to 8 months as referred in the status report, therefore the period behind jail i.e. about two and a half years could not be considered as a prolong detention. 8. I have considered the above submissions and taking note of status of trial that it has proceed substantially and at this stage, possibility to influence any witness does not arise as well as applicant is behind jail for about two and a half years, therefore, the applicant has made out a case for bail. 9. Let the applicant-Ram Lakhan Rathore, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C. (iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment. (v) Applicant has to appear on each and every date before learned Trial Court and any application for exemption of his appearance on vague ground could be a ground for cancellation of bail by learned Trial Court without even issuing notice. 10. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 11. The bail application is allowed. 12. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad