Arjun Rao v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48162 of 2023 Applicant :- Arjun Rao Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurodh Tripathi,Abhishek Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

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

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶3The 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. 155 of 2023, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Obra, District Sonbhadra during the pendency of the trial.

¶4Learned 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. As per the medical report, the injured sustained a single injury on right side of chest. In the statement of the injured, specific role of assault has been assigned to co-accused Sushil Kumar. The name of the applicant was disclosed by one Aditya Sahney. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the offender who caused injury on the injured. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Ritik Agrawal, Vinay Kumar Singh and Roshan Kumar have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 9221 of 2023, Ritik Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another, 9336 of 2023, Vinay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and another, vide orders dated 12.10.2023 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40620 of 2023, Roshan Kumar v. State of U.P., vide order 18.09.2023. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 15.07.2023 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having 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. As per the medical report, the injured sustained a single injury on chest region. In the statement of the injured specific role of assault has been assigned to co-accused Sushil Kumar. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the offender who caused injury on the injured. Identically placed co-accused Ritik Agrawal, Vinay Kumar Singh and Roshan Kumar have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four and half 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.

¶7Let the applicant-Arjun Rao, 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.

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