Ravi @ Rohit @ Nangar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45309 of 2023 Applicant :- Ravi @ Rohit @ Nangar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State.

¶3The 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. 203 of 2023, under Sections 392 and 120B of I.P.C., Police Station-Akbarpur, District-Kanpur Dehat, during pendency of the trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was not identified on the basis of CCTV footage. The name of the applicant and another co-accused, Ajay @ Naresh Chauhan was disclosed by the co-accused, Rohit @ Deependra in Police custody. The said statement, insofar as, it implicates the applicant is unreliable. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. It is next contended that the co-accused, Ajay @ Naresh Chauhan, having identical role, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34384 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since

07.08.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned brief holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid facts from the record.

¶6Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. The co-accused, Ajay @ Naresh Chauhan, having identical role, has been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three 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 merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant, Ravi @ Rohit @ Nangar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and, iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶8In 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 :- 20.11.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad