Allowed

Ramraj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2018CRLA/518/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application. It observed the length of custody, lack of criminal history, and absence of evidence regarding sexual harassment, concluding that bail should be granted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Ramraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 22 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 518 of 2018 Appellant :- Ramraj Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Krishna Kant Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

Sri C.S. Agnihotri,Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of complainant/ opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.

¶4

Sri C.S. Agnihotri, Advocate, has filed counter affidavit on behalf of complainant/opposite party No.2, which is taken on record.

¶5

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

¶6

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 18.1.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi-Gyanpur, in Bail Application No. 20/2018 (Subhash Chand & others Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.01 of 2018, under Sections 364, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi, whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶7

According to the prosecution story, the F.I.R was lodged against four accused persons namely Bal Vidhya Vikas Yadav, Subhash Yadav, Rajesh Yadav and Ramraj Yadav, alleging that on 31.12.2017 they have abducted Shesh Mani through four wheeler and came back on 1.1.2018.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated; he is languishing in jail since 11.1.2018 (more than one year and half month) having no criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence.

¶9

Sheshmani has filed an affidavit on 2.1.2018 before the S.P, Bhadohi stating therein that he was not abducted by any person and he went to Vindhyachal for Darshan and came back on 1.1.2018. He has further stated that he has not committed any offence.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that he has no objection to allow this application.

¶11

Perusal of record shows that victim has not stated anything against this appellant about sexual harassment, there is allegation of only touching body as alleged in the FIR. No internal examination of victim was done and no sign of external injury was found on the body of victim.

¶12

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without 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 appealis allowed. Impugned order dated 12.10.2017 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let appellant Ramraj Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crimes 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 the 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

¶17

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 20.2.2018

¶22

G.S

Ramraj Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramraj Yadav v. State of U.P.

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

Prem Chand Vs State of U.P.

Ranvir Vs State of U.P.

Prem Chand Vs State of U.P.

Ahsutosh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Subash Chand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Yadav Vs State of U.P.