Single Judge Canc. 78 allowed bail to Ramavadh Chaurasia under Section 437 CrPC with conditions to appear in court and avoid adjournments, while refusing to adjudicate innocence at pre-trial stage.
The applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties for ₹10,000 each, on specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28210 of 2019
Applicant :- Ramavadh Chaurasia Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Karunesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Ramavadh Chaurasia with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 619 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 307, 342, 427, 436, 336, 325 I.P.C., 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station-Shahpur, DistrictGorakhpur, during the pendency of the trial.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that an F.I.R. against 13 named prisoners and 125 unknown prisoners of Gorakhpur Jail was lodged. It was also alleged that due to death of one prisoner the destructive activities were performed by the prisoners in jail and general allegations were made against all the prisoners. The applicant is not named in the FIR. It is argued that co-accused Raj Kumar Bajpai, Anand Tiwari, Sonu @ Sandeep, Arfeen @ Shahnawaj and Om Prakash Tripathi and Ramakant Yadav have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 10.04.2017, 18.04.2017, 08.06.2017, 28.08.2017, 12.01.2018 and 17.04.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos.11929, 12789, 29502 of 2017, 1610 of 2018 and 13357 of 2019 respectively. The case of the applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused who are also not named in the FIR and have been granted bail. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant has one criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one and the same has satisfactorily been explained in paragaph-7 of the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 5th April, 2013.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant 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 applicant is released on bail he 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 applicant.
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 applicant 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:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant 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 applicant 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 him in accordance with law.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 24.7.2019
Sushil/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail ought to be granted to the applicant in the crime under the relevant IPC sections and PDP Act.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who have already been granted bail.
Whether conditions can be imposed on the applicant to prevent abuse of bail liberty and ensure appearance in court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & AnotherReferred¶10
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramavadh Chaurasia
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
