Rajkumar Alias Hakdoo v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43594 of 2023 Applicant :- Rajkumar Alias Hakdoo Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar,Akshay Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 502 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 269, 307, 308, 332, 333, 352, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The name of the applicant surfaced during investigation. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Nanhka @ Shiv Kumar has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22028 of 2023, Nanhka @ Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P., vide order dated

31.05.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-22 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 05.04.2022 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

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

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. Identically placed co-accused Nanhka @ Shiv Kumar has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost one year and seven months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, 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-Rajkumar alias Hakdoo, 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 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 :- 7.11.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad