Vineet Rajbhar and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49611 of 2023 Applicant :- Vineet Rajbhar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,M.S. Chauhan Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, 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 applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicants have not prepared any forged documents. Instead of instituting the proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006, the instant case has been filed against the applicants. At this stage, there is no cogent evidence to connect the applicants with the offence. The applicants are in jail since 22.09.2023 having no criminal history and in case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have 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 no proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 have been instituted against the applicants. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence against the applicants. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants have remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet 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 applicants, 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 applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicants Vineet Rajbhar and Achchhe Lal Rajbhar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that they:

(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 :- 13.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad