Rinku @ Harendra vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court found merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It was held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The Court explicitly stated that it was making no observations on the merits of the case. The bail application was allowed, and the applicant, Rinku @ Harendra, was ordered to be released on bail in the specified case crime number. This release is subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, not influencing witnesses, appearing before the trial court on fixed dates unless exempted, and not inducing, threatening, or promising any person to dissuade them from disclosing facts or tampering with evidence. Breach of these conditions would allow the prosecution to move for bail cancellation.

Facts

This case involves a bail application filed by Rinku @ Harendra, the applicant, in connection with Case Crime No. 147 of 2014 (GST NO. 01/2015) under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act. The applicant has been in jail since December 15, 2021. His bail application was previously rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-1)/Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Mainpuri, on February 2, 2022. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was falsely implicated and had left for Delhi in search of livelihood. A communication gap with his counsel's office led to his absence from trial on appointed dates. The applicant expressed his willingness to join court proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the submissions made by the applicant's counsel regarding false implication and absence due to communication gap. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that he had gone to Delhi for livelihood and was not properly informed about the trial court proceedings due to a communication gap with his counsel's office, which led to his absence. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings and assures he is a law-abiding citizen. Revenue/State: The learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions made by the applicant's counsel from the record.