Allowed

Ram Veer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2018CRLA/1835/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1835 of 2018, the High Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of bail. The court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for bail and released him on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside. No opinion on the merits of the prosecution case was expressed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Impugned order dated 9.2.2018 set aside; Appellant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Ram Veer Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1835 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Veer Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. Notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 9.2.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.2, Firozabad in Bail Application No. 318 of 2018(Ram Veer vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2018 under Section 307,384, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Dakshin, District Firozabad whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that FIR was lodged against Ram Autar Verma and two unknown persons alleging that on 3.1.2018 at 6:30 P.M. they demanded extortion money from Lalta Prasad, when he denied, Ram Autar shot fire at Lalta Prasad and one unknown person shot fire at Rajesh. Lalta Prasad received injury on his neck and Ram Autar was arrested on spot. Two unknown persons fled away. During investigation, it was found that Vivek, Ram Veer, Raju Kalia and Chhotoo @ Dev Karan were also indulged in the crime.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not named in the FIR. As per statement of injured and FIR, main role was assigned to accused Ram Autar who was arrested on spot. General role is said to have been attributed to all the accused except Ram Autar. The appellant is languishing in jail since 7.1.2018(about seven months). Criminal history of three cases has been explained, in one case he has been acquitted and in other two cases he is on bail. There is no independent witness and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.

¶11

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without

¶12

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 9.2.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant Ram Veer involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

2.The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

3.The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

4.The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

5.The appellant 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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.8.2018

¶21

P.P.

Ram Veer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Veer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Radhey and Ors. Vs State

Chuhi Alias Uma Alias Huma Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Taharuddin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sahid @ Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Anr.