RAHULversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33545 of 2024

Rahul
                                                      .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                          .....Opposite
                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Atharva Dixit, Gaurav Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): Ashutosh Mishra, Atul Kumar
                               Shahi, G.A.

Court No. - 69
                 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shiv Dutt
Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and Sri Anshul
Sengar, learned counsel for the first informant and perused the
record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of
applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.
0078 of 2024, under Sections 304, 308, 452, 376, 506 IPC and
Section 3/4 POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Airwakatra,,
District Auraiya during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned Senior counsel for the
applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely
implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since
26.5.2024. It is further submitted that the FIR has been lodged
against unknown and as per FIR some unknown accused persons
are said to have assaulted the brother and mother of the first
informant by some hard and blunt object as a result of which the
brother of the first informant died and his mother received grievous
injury on her person. It is further submitted that during investigation
the applicant is said to have made extra judicial confession before
                                                      BAIL No. 33545 of 2024
                              2


Hari Babu and Sonu Yadav and thereafter the victim in her
statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC has
implicated the applicant under the pressure of the first informant,
however, said statements have been recorded after much delay
i.e. after the applicant is said to have made confession before Hari
Babu and Sonu Yadav. It is further submitted that the applicant has
been languishing in jail for the last two years and trial is not likely to
be concluded in near future as only four witnesses have been
examined so far. It is further submitted that PW-4 Virendra Singh in
his testimony before the trial Court has categorically admitted that
it was true that his daughter had informed him that it was the
applicant who had committed the offence, however, despite that
the applicant is not named in the FIR which raises serious doubt on
the truthfulness of the version of the FIR. It is also submitted that
the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early
conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant has
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is
submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Sections
161 and 164 CrPC has implicated the applicant and she has stated
that the applicant came inside the house and undressed her and
after hearing the knock he ran away after hitting her uncle and
grand-mother by hard and blunt object i.e. Belcha as a result of
which her uncle died and grand-mother has received grievous
injury.

5. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for grant of bail to
the applicant and it is submitted that the victim has supported the
case of prosecution in her statements recorded under Sections 161
and 164 CrPC.


6. First information report has been lodged against unknown after a
delay of four days. Thereafter the applicant is said to have made
                                                   BAIL No. 33545 of 2024
                             3


extra judicial confession before the witnesses Hari Babur and Sonu
Yadav and after his extra judicial confession, statements of the
victim under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC have been recorded in
which she has implicated the applicant stating therein the applicant
came inside the house and undressed her and after hearing the
knock he ran away after hitting her uncle (Surendra) and grand-
mother by hard and blunt object i.e. Belcha as a result of which her
uncle died and grand-mother has received grievous injury. The first
informant has appeared as PW-4 and in his statement he has
stated that it is true that his daughter had informed him that it was
the applicant who had committed the offence, however, despite
that first informant has not named the applicant in the FIR, which
has been lodged after considerable delay.

7. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence
reflected from record and considering the fact that only four
witnesses have been examined so far and trial is not likely to be
concluded near in future and without expressing any opinion on
merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the
present bail application is ALLOWED.

8. Let the applicant- Rahul involved in the aforesaid case crime be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned with the following conditions :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts
to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial
court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of
                                                                                        BAIL No. 33545 of 2024
                                                                 4


                                    B.N.S.S.

                                    (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall
                                    not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
                                    witnesses are present in the trial court.

                                    (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each
                                    date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

                                    9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
                                    ground for cancellation of bail.

                                    10. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the
                                    purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way
                                    be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial
                                    court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent
                                    conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything
                                    said in this order.

                                    11. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
                                    of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period
                                    of one year

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Abhishek

                                                                                (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad