State of U.P v. Rajeev and another) in which vide judgment and order dated

2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant X Juvenile, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 691 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 29.09.2023 by Sohanveer against the applicant, Vikas and Rajeev alleging therein that on 29.09.2023 at about 07:45 pm his son Ritik aged about 16 years after having his dinner went to the shop of general merchant of Rajeev to purchase items where there was some dispute with regards to balance amount after which Vikas brother of Rajeev and the applicant the nephew of Rajeev caught hold of him and assaulted him mercilessly and left him. The informant on seeing had raised his shouts on which the accused persons ran away. His son was taken to the hospital where the doctors declared him dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had previously claimed juvenile which was pending and subsequently he was declared as 17 years and 2 months old but the court concerned directed him to be treated as adult. It is submitted that in the meantime, co-accused Rajeev and Vikas were put on trial in Session Trial No. 27 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Rajeev and another) in which vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Baghpat they have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, certified copy of the judgment and order has been placed before the Court which is annexure 9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that thus the implication of the applicant in the aforesaid case is false and without any credible evidence. It is submitted that even otherwise common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant and the cause of death of is asphyxia due to smothering for which there is no specification. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.10.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant although is present but he did not oppose the prayer for bail and did not oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial of co-accused Rajeev and Vikas was taken in which the said co-accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Common and general role has been assigned to all the three accused persons including the applicant.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant X Juvenile, 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 will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

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. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

3. This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant X Juvenile, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 691 of 2023, under Section 302 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 29.09.2023 by Sohanveer against the applicant, Vikas and Rajeev alleging therein that on 29.09.2023 at about 07:45 pm his son Ritik aged about 16 years after having his dinner went to the shop of general merchant of Rajeev to purchase items where there was some dispute with regards to balance amount after which Vikas brother of Rajeev and the applicant the nephew of Rajeev caught hold of him and assaulted him mercilessly and left him. The informant on seeing had raised his shouts on which the accused persons ran away. His son was taken to the hospital where the doctors declared him dead.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had previously claimed juvenile which was pending and subsequently he was declared as 17 years and 2 months old but the court concerned directed him to be treated as adult. It is submitted that in the meantime, co-accused Rajeev and Vikas were put on trial in Session Trial No. 27 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Rajeev and another) in which vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Baghpat they have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, certified copy of the judgment and order has been placed before the Court which is annexure 9 to the affidavit. It is submitted that thus the implication of the applicant in the aforesaid case is false and without any credible evidence. It is submitted that even otherwise common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant and the cause of death of is asphyxia due to smothering for which there is no specification. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 01.10.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant although is present but he did not oppose the prayer for bail and did not oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial of co-accused Rajeev and Vikas was taken in which the said co-accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Common and general role has been assigned to all the three accused persons including the applicant.

8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

9. Let the applicant X Juvenile, 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 will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) 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. (iv) 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. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

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. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad