Rajeev Kushwaha @ Raju v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Mar 2022
- Bench
- PRAKASH TRIPATHI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 21
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 379, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471
Judgment
Applicant :- Rajeev Kushwaha @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Shri Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has not stolen any car. Applicant has criminal history of five cases which have been explained in the affidavit and in all the cases, applicant has been granted bail. The applicant is not named in F.I.R. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for applicant assured that applicant will not indulge himself in any criminal activities. The applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
The applicant is in custody since 15.08.2021. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the submission made by learned counsel for applicant. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case of bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Rajeev Kushwaha @ Raju be released on bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of subject to following magistrate/court concerned, conditions:- (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 will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. (v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. (vi) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 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. Order Date :- 25.3.2022 Sharad/- SRIVASTAVA Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 21; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 379, 411, 413, 420, 467, 468, 471.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 25 Mar 2022. The bench was PRAKASH TRIPATHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.