Ranjeet v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44336 of 2023 Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Azhar Hussain,Shaban Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 336, 392, 307 & 506 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment), Police Station Eatmaddaula, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. In the first information report, fifteen persons including the applicant, are nominated. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. It is next contended that the co-accused, Sardar @ Saudan Singh, having identical role, has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32762 of 2021 vide order dated

19.08.2021. The applicant claims parity. Prior to the instant case the applicant does not have any criminal history, however after his arrest he has been implicated in other cases. The applicant is in jail since 06.01.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The identically placed co-accused, Sardar @ Saudan Singh, has been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and nine months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant Ranjeet, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad