Raheesh Alias Khudda v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46571 of 2023 Applicant :- Raheesh Alias Khudda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and perused the record.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in G.S.T. No. 937 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 912 of 2009, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Delhigate, District Aligarh during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by this Court on 15.04.2010. Though the applicant participated in the trial for a considerable period, the trial could not conclude and at the same time due to unavoidable reasons the applicant had left the station to earn livelihood. As such the applicant was reported to have absconded and non-bailable warrant was issued. The applicant was again arrested on

23.06.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of instructions submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall appear regularly before the court below and shall not leave the station without permission of the court concerned.

¶4Learned A.G.A. 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 the applicant had earlier appeared and contested the proceedings, however, the trial could not conclude and further the applicant has presently remained confined for almost six 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 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-Raheesh alias Khudda, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶1shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶2shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶3shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶4shall not leave the district without prior permission of the trial court.

¶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 :- 30.11.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad