RAJNEESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REJOINDER affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.309 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mall, District Lucknow. It is submitted that the applicant happens to be a younger brother (devar) who is languishing in jail from 01.11.2008. It is claimed that he lives in a separate village because he is not on good terms with his brother (husband). The name of that village Ghadihaar, Majra Saidapur has also been mentioned in para 4 supported by certificate issued by Village Pradhan (Annexure-2). This specific averment has also not been controverted. It is also said that there are general allegations against the applicant in the F.I.R. There is no criminal history against him and this averment has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. The bail is however, opposed by learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the discussion made hereinabove, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Rajneesh) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned.