Allahabad High Court
Lakshman Raghav Alias Kaka vs State Of U.P. on 21 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146663 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146663 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25193 of 2025 Applicant :- Lakshman Raghav Alias Kaka Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Rajbhar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.S. Chauhan,G.A. And Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11913 of 2025 Applicant :- Kakku @ Abhimanyu Raghav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.S. Chauhan,G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant-Lakshman Raghav Alias Kaka, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant-Kakku @ Abhimanyu Raghav, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. G.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. This repeat application for bail have been filed by applicants-Lakshman Raghav Alias Kaka and Kakku @ Abhimanyu Raghav, seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 147, 342, 302, 376D, Police Station-Atrauli, District-Aligarh during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No.2077 of 2022 (State Vs. Kakku @ Abhimanyu Raghav and 3 others), under Sections 147, 342, 302, 376D, Police Station-Atrauli, District-Aligarh now pending in the Court of Sessions Judge Aligarh.
4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 04.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12386 of 2023 (Vishnu Kumar @ Prashant Raghav Vs. State of U.P.) alognwith Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19442 of 2023 (Lakshman Raghav @ Kaka Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the order dated 04.08.2023 is reproduced hereinunder:-
“1. Heard Mr. Yashpal Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Uljhan Singh Bind, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. G.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel representing first informant.
2. Two supplementary affidavits filed by the learned counsel for applicants and the photo copy of the F.S.L. report and the order dated 10.05.2023 placed by the learned counsel representing first informant before Court, are taken on record.
3. Perused the record.
4. These applications for bail have been filed by applicants-Vishnu Kumar @ Prashant Raghav and Lakshman Raghav @ Kaka seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 147, 342, 302, 376D, Police Station-Atrouli, District-Aligarh during the pendency of trial.
5. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 13.05.2022, a written report was submitted by the father of the victim. The same is on record at page 46 of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.07.2023 filed by the learned counsel for applicants. As per the said written report, no person has been nominated in the crime in question. Subsequently, on 14.05.2022, another written report was submitted by the father of the deceased. The same is on record at page 43 of the aforementioned supplementary affidavit. In the aforesaid written report, 2 persons namely Vishnu Kumar @ Prashant Raghav and Lakshman Raghav @ Kaka have been nominated as named accused along with 2 other unknown persons.
6. On the basis of aforementioned written report dated 14.05.2022, an FIR dated 15.05.2022 came to be registered as Case Crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 342, 302, 376D, Police Station-Atrouli, District-Aligarh. In the aforesaid FIR, 2 persons namely Kukku @ Abhimanu Raghav, Kaka @ Lakshman i.e. applicant herein have been nominated as named accused whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.
7. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR to the effect that as per the disclosure made by Abhay, minor son of the first informant. Named accused along with others are guilty of committing rape upon the daughter of the first informant and thereafter having cause the murder of the victim.
8. It is apposite to mention here that after submission of the first written report dated 13.05.2022, the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted on 13.05.2022 itself. In the opinion of the witnesses of inquest (Panch witnesses), the nature of death of the deceased was characterized as suicidal. Thereafter, post mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging. However, the Autopsy Surgeon found following anti-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-
“(1) Ligature mark 18.0 cm x 1.0 cm around the neck passing below chin and above thyroid about 3.0 cm below (Rt.) Ear, 5.0 cm below left ear and 5.0 cm below chin @ a gap of about 10.0 cm over back.
On cut skin underneath is white/swelling and parchment like.
(2) Vulva swollen hence (2) two vaginal smear and one vaginal swab taken. Labelled extend and handed over to c.p. concerned for the detection of seenhotozax of F.S.L. Agra.”
9. Certain samples were also taken from the body of the deceased for pathological examination. However, the supplementary medico legal report of the prosecutrix has not been brought on record. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses including Abhay, the minor son of the first informant. As per the statement of Abhay, the minor son of the first informant and brother of the deceased, he is an eye witness of the occurrence. He has detailed the manner of the occurrence. His statement is on record at page 65/66 of the paper book. Subsequently, the statement of Abhay was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is on record at page 79 of the paper book wherein he has rejoined his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by the Investigating Officer, he came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused i.e. applicants herein as well as Sarthak and Ashwini is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 10.08.2022 whereby the following persons have been charge sheeted under Sections 147, 342, 302, 376D IPC:-
(i) Kakku @ Abhimanu Raghav,
(ii) Kaka @ Lakshman,
(iii) Vishnu Kumar,
(iv) Ashwani
10. Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in aforementioned case crime number. There is an inherent fallacy in the prosecution case inasmuch as, in the first written report dated 13.05.2022, the prosecution has not alleged the complicity of applicants in the crime in question. The prosecution came up with a case that the daughter of the first informant had committed suicide by hanging herself. It is thereafter that the second written report dated 14.05.2022 was submitted by the first informant (father of the deceased) wherein a new case has been set up alleging the complicity of the applicants in the crime in question. He, therefore, contends that since the prosecution itself is not clear and consistent with regard to the prosecution story which it wants to prove against the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail.
11. It is next contended that one of the named and charge sheeted accused namely Sarthak Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order 05.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12333 of 2023 (Sarthak Kumar Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is re-produced hereinunder:-
“1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 147, 342, 302, 376D of IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the daughter of the informant is stated to have committed suicide in the morning of 13.05.2022 and, as such, the matter was reported to the police station on the same day. The inquest proceedings of the deceased have been conducted on the same day and in the autopsy report, cause of her death was found to be ante mortem hanging. The doctor conducting autopsy has also observed the vulva of the deceased swollen. The FIR was lodged by the informant on 15.05.2022 whereby he had named the accused persons, Kukku @ Abhimanyu Raghav, Kaka @ Laxman and two unknown persons to have committed rape with deceased person and put her to death in the night of 12/13.05.2022 between 03:00 to 04:00 AM.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR which was lodged after much deliberations and consultations mentions the name of four persons to be the perpetrator of crime in which two are named and two are unknown persons. Learned counsel has further stated that the informant had even filed an affidavit and reiterated the said allegations against the four persons having caused the alleged offence during his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. During investigation, the Investigating Officer was pleased to transform the case u/s 306 IPC. It has come up in the statements of other witnesses also that the persons, who had committed the said offence, were Kaka, Kukku, Ashwani and Vishnu. Learned counsel has further stated that the name of the applicant has come up on the basis of suspicion only when the CDR of the mobile number of the victim i.e. 7453091897 was taken up by the Investigating Officer and it was found that she had called the main accused persons Kukku @ Abhimanyu Raghav 82 times and the applicant 14 times. Subsequent to the CDR report, the statement of brother of the deceased person Abhay Chauhan was recorded by the I.O. at a belated stage on 29.05.2022 whereby the name of the applicant has been introduced. Thus, the assailants are stated to have been increased to 5 in number from 4. Learned counsel has further stated that the brother of the deceased Abhay Chauhan has even reiterated the said allegations in the statement recorded before the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 04.06.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the informant and other persons of the village have filed affidavits before the police whereby they have stated that the assailants were four in number and they have not nominated the applicant in them. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to the case of other four named co-accused persons. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2022 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the star witness is Abhay Chauhan who had seen the accused persons as he was present there and was locked inside by the accused persons and he being the star witness has nominated the applicant as one of the accused person. Although, they could not dispute the fact that the statement of the said witness has been recorded after a delay of about 16 days to the offence.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the fact that the FIR was lodged after a delay of two days and it mentions the assailants to be four in number and later on, the names of two unknown persons have come up and the applicant is not named in it, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail.
9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sarthak Kumar involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. ”
12. Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as, they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicants are in jail since 31.05.2022. As such, they have undergone more than 1 year and 2 months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized. Up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged against applicants necessitating the custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial. He, therefore, contends that no useful purpose shall be served in prolonging the custodial arrest of applicants. On the cumulative strength of above, it is thus urged that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. G.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel representing first informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submit that since applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The crime committed by the applicants is not private in nature but a crime against society.
14. Mr. G.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel representing first informant has then invited the attention of Court to the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43327 of 2022 (Ashwani Vs. State of U.P.) whereby the bail application of not named but charge sheeted accused Ashwani has been rejected. For ready reference, the order dated 10.05.2023 is reproduced hereinunder:-
“1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Rajneesh Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 202/2022, under Sections 376-D, 302, 147, 342 IPC, police station Atrauli, District Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
3. According to prosecution version, on 13.05.2022 at around 03:00-04:00 AM while informant and his wife were not at the home, co-accused Kukku @ Abhimanyu Raghav and Kaka @ Laxman, along with two unknown persons, came at the house of informant and extending threats they took his daughter into a room and ravished her. They have also threatened the son of informant, who was present there. The daughter of informant has threatened that she would tell the incident to her family members and thereafter the said accused persons hanged her. It appears that during investigation, on the basis of postmortem report, it was found that deceased has died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging and thus, the case was converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 306 IPC.
4. It has been argued by learned senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that applicant is not named in the first information report, which was lodged against co-accused Kukku @ Abhimanyu Raghav, Kaka @ Laxman and one unknown person. The record of call details of the deceased was collected but no call was found to be of applicant with deceased. The deceased has committed suicide and after that a false story has been concocted. The prosecution version regarding rape of victim is not supported by postmortem report. Learned senior counsel submitted that alleged incident has been shown of 13.05.2022 and after that informant has given an information to the police stating that his daughter has committed suicide but at that time no allegation regarding rape of victim was made nor any accused was named therein and after two days of the incident, first information report was lodged on 15.05.2022 with deliberations. Even as per the statement of witness Surendra Singh Chauhan, the deceased was having an affair with co-accused Kukku @ Abhimanyu Raghav and regarding applicant and co-accused, it was submitted that they used to harass the victim girl. Learned senior counsel has referred the statement of Abhay Chauhan, who is brother of deceased, and submitted that the allegations made by the said witness are thoroughly false and improbable. It was further submitted that co-accused Sarthak Kumar has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, copy of which, is available on record. It was also submitted that witness Mahi Chauhan, who is sister of deceased, has not named the applicant. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is a student and he is in judicial custody since 01.07.2022, having no criminal history, and that that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that eye witness Abhay Chauhan has clearly stated that applicant was involved in the incident. Referring to the statement of Abhay Chauhan, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that he has categorically named the applicant and co-accused Kaka, Kukku and Vishnu and he has stated that while co-accused Kaka, Kukku and Vishnu were dragging the deceased into another room and he tried to intervene, co-accused Kaka, Kukku and applicant have closed him into a room and applicant has threatened that if he disclosed the incident to anyone, he would kill his brothers and sisters. They took the deceased into a room while deceased kept crying and after sometime they came out from the said room and deceased told that she has been ravished by them. It was submitted that the version that deceased was ravished by applicant is supported by FSL report, wherein, human blood has been found on t-shirt and trouser of deceased and sperms were also found in vaginal swab, vaginal slide and on undergarments of deceased. It was further submitted that in his statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., eye witness Abhay Chauhan has not named co-accused Sarthak Kumar and that bail of co-accused Sarthak Kumar was allowed on the ground that initially the prosecution version was that only four accused persons were involved in the incident. It was also submitted that facts and evidence clearly show that on the day of incident at wee hours applicant and co-accused persons came at the house of deceased and they forcibly dragged her into a room and threatened her minor brothers and sisters and closed them into a room and they ravished the deceased and after the incident, deceased committed suicide.
6. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant Ashwani is rejected.”
15. Much emphasis was laid on the recital contained in paragraph 3 of the said order and on basis thereof, he submits that supplementary medico legal report clearly supports the prosecution case that the modesty of the victim was dislodged.
16. According to the learned A.G.A, the complicity of the applicants in the crime in question is fully substantiated in the statements of Abhay, minor brother of the deceased whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. followed by his subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In both the statements, this witness has remained clear, consistent and categorical, therefore, his testimony is not liable to be discarded on the ground of contradiction or inconsistency. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to the statement of another witness Mahi Chauhan, which is on record at page 69B of the paper book pertaining to the applicant Lakshman Raghav @ Kaka. This witness is a minor girl aged about 10 years and she has also supported the prosecution story which the prosecution has set out to prove. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that irrespective of the fact that the applicants are men of clean antecedents having no criminal history to their credit, the period of incarceration undergone coupled with the fact that the police report has been submitted against applicant yet they are not liable to be enlarged on bail. The crime committed by the applicants is not private in nature but a crime against society. Applicants are guilty of dislodging the modesty of the prosecutrix who was a young girl. It is thus urged that no sympathy be shown by this Court in favour of applicants.
17. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant, upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, complicity of applicants, accusations made coupled with the fact that the complicity of the applicants in the crime in question is clearly supported by the supplementary medico legal report which has been dealt with at page 3 of the order dated 10.05.2023 referred to above, the deceased was a young girl aged about 20 years, no explanation has been offered to doubt the credibility or reliability of the two witnesses namely Abhay and Mahi Chauhan, nothing has emerged on the record on the basis of which, it can be inferred that the prosecution of the applicants is malicious or false, the nature of the crime not being private in nature but a crime against society, therefore, irrespective of the fact that the applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as, they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one, the period of incarceration undergone and also the fact that the charge sheet has been submitted and the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized but without making any comments on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the applicants on bail.
17. In view of above, the present applications for bail fail and are liable to be rejected.
18. They are accordingly rejected. ”
5. Learned counsel for applicants submits that an FIR dated 15.05.2022 was lodged by first informant opposite party-2 Anoop Kumar (father of the deceased) which was registered as Case Crime No. 202 of 2022, under Sections 342, 302, 376D, Police Station-Atrouli, District-Aligarh. In the aforesaid FIR, 2 persons namely Kukku @ Abhimanu Raghav, Kaka @ Lakshman i.e. applicant herein have been nominated as named accused whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused.
6. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of five persons have emerged in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet dated 10.08.2022 whereby the following persons have been charge sheeted under Sections 147, 342, 302, 376D IPC:-
(i) Kakku @ Abhimanu Raghav,
(ii) Kaka @ Lakshman,
(iii) Vishnu Kumar,
(iv) Ashwani
7. Subsequently, supplementary charge sheet dated 14.09.2022 was submitted by the Investing Officer whereby, another accused Sarthak was also charge sheeted.
8. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, copy of which is on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of this repeat application for bail. The Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the body of deceased, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was Asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem hanging. However, the Autopsy Surgeon found following anti-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-
“(1) Ligature mark 18.0 cm x 1.0 cm around the neck passing below chin and above thyroid about 3.0 cm below (Rt.) Ear, 5.0 cm below left ear and 5.0 cm below chin @ a gap of about 10.0 cm over back.
On cut skin underneath is white/swelling and parchment like.
(2) Vulva swollen hence (2) two vaginal smear and one vaginal swab taken. Labelled extend and handed over to c.p. concerned for the detection of seenhotozax of F.S.L. Agra.”
9. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that in view of above, prima facie the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out against applicants. So far as the offence under Section 376D I.P.C. is concerned all the accused have been charge sheeted under Section 376D I.P.C. Secondly, upto this stage, three prosecution witnesses of fact have deposed before Court below i.e. PW-1 Anoop Kumar (father of the deceased), PW-2 Abhay Singh (eye witness), PW-3 Soomveer Singh, before Court below. PW-2 Abhay Singh who is an eye witness of the occurrence and brother of the deceased in his deposition before Court below has implicated all the charge sheeted accused in the crime in question.
10. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that since complicity of all the charge sheeted accused has emerged in the crime in question, as per the deposition of PW-2 and 3 of the charge sheeted accused have already been enlarged on bail then there does not exist any such distinguishing feature in the case of present applicants so as to deny them bail during the pendency of trial. For ready reference the details of bail orders of co-accused are mentioned herein below.
(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12333 of 2023 (Sarthak Kumar Vs. State of U.P.).
(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.34819 of 2024 (Ashwani Vs. State of U.P.).
(iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1356 of 2025 (Vishnu Kumar Alias Prashant Raghav Vs. State of U.P.).
11. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicants that once the statements of the first informant and the prosecution witness of fact have been recorded before Court below then in that eventuality it cannot be said that if, applicant is enlarged on bail then he shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. As such, no good or sufficient ground exists to prolong the custodial arrest of applicants/appellants during the pendency of trial.
12. Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as, they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. Applicants are in jail since 24.05.2022. As such, they have undergone more than three years and 3 months of incarceration. The charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicants during the pendency of trial. Furthermore, once the statements of the first informant and the prosecution witness of fact have been recorded before Court below therefore, in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that applicants shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicants submits that in view of aforementioned facts no justifiable ground can now be said to be in existence so as to prolong the custodial arrest of applicants. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicants that applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case, the applicants-appellants are enlarged on bail then in that eventuality, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submits that since applicants are named as well as charge sheeted accused, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. The case of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail is clearly distinguishable from the present applicants inasmuch as while applicants are named in the FIR and other accused are not named in the FIR. As such, no new good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge the applicants on bail. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants, with reference to the record at this stage.
14. Mr. G.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 has also opposed the prayer. However, he has not added anything new but has adopted the submission made by the learned A.G.A.
15. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made, complicity of accused and this Court finds that it is a proved fact that death of the deceased has resulted on account of hanging. As such, prima facie no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. can be said to be made out. Secondly, all the charge sheeted accused have been charge sheeted under Section 376D I.P.C. No such distinguishing feature could be pointed out by the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 so as to distinguish the case of applicants from other bailed out accused. PW-2 Abhay Singh who is an eye witness of the occurrence and brother of the deceased in his deposition before Court below has implicated all the charge sheeted accused in the crime in question, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicants stands crystallized yet inspite of above, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 could not point out any such incriminating circumstance from the record necessitating custodial arrest of applicants during the pendency of trial, the clean antecedents of applicants, the period of incarceration undergone, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 in opposition to the present repeat application for bail, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.
16. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.
17. Let the applicants-Lakshman Raghav Alias Kaka and Kakku @ Abhimanyu Raghav, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
18. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
Imtiyaz
[ad_1]
Source link