Allowed

Ramesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019BAIL/27661/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to three applicants in a criminal trial for offenses under Sections 336, 504, 506, and 354-B IPC. While not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the court released them on a personal bond and two local sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and preventing abuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of a similar amount.

Ramesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27661 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ramesh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasiruzzaman,Mohit Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the a pplicants-Ramesh, Pramod and Lokendra with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2018, under Sections 336, 504, 506 and 354-B I.P.C., Police Station-Pisawa, District-Aligarh, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report has been lodged against four named accused persons including the present applicants alleging therein that all the accused persons used to pelt stones on the house of the informant, the informant have made complaint against them from the villagers about the said incident. On 5th March, 2018 the co-accused persons Rahul and Pramod tried to commit indecent act with the daughter-in-law of the informant on the way and in that regard he has again made complaint from their parents on which all the accused persons abused and threatened to kill him. At 10:00 p.m. they again pelted stones on his house. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is wholly concocted, as is evident from the charge-sheet, wherein the co-accused, Rahul who has been assigned the role of committing indecent act with the daughter-in-law of the informant along with the co-accused Pramod has already been exonerated by the Investigating Officer. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants the applicant no.1 is father of the applicant nos. 2 and 3 and it is impossible to believe that they have committed offence punishable under Section 354-A I.P.C. altogether. The applicants are innocent and have

¶9

been falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. The applicants have three criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one but the same have satisfactorily been explained in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 21st June, 2019.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicants involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶13

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶16

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 22.7.2019 Sushil/-

Ramesh and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Qurasi Vs State of U.P.

Nikku @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

rajendra prasad @ hansi croniya Vs State of U.P.

Wahid @ Podina Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.