Allowed

Ram Sharan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 May 2020BAIL/10418/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Chamber bail application allowed. Court held applicant entitled to bail due to shifting prosecution story, deviation in FIR amounts, and statutory provisions alongside Apex Court dicta. Bail granted on personal bond without sureties temporarily.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond without sureties until normal court functioning restored, thereafter with two sureties.

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10418 of 2020 Applicant :- Ram Sharan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary condition prevailing now a days.

¶4

Written objection filed by Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA dated 02.05.2020, which is taken on record.

¶5

The applicant is facing prosecution in case crime no. 03 of 2020, under Sections 420, 395, 412 IPC, P.S. Shiwali, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶6

The prosecution story is very interesting, the FIR was lodged by Ravindra Kumar Verma, the victim himself against nine named persons. The name of the accused applicant is Ram Sharan is not named in the FIR as an accused. In fact the applicant is Boss/Area Manager of the informant, who inform the informant that in village Khakra, P.S. Shiwali, he will get the reptiles having two mouths, if informant would purchase the same he can sell it of in double of the price.

¶7

There is mark deviation in the prosecution story mentioned in the FIR and 164 Cr.P.C. statement. In the FIR the amount is mentioned as Rs. 3.50 lakhs whereas in 164 Cr.P.C. it is mentioned as Rs. 2.50 lakhs.

¶8

Taking into account the shifting stand and nature of acquisition upon the applicant, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant is in jail since 08.01.2020 and trial has not been concluded.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant- Ram Sharan , who is involved in case crime no. 03 of 2020, under Sections 420, 395, 412 IPC, P.S. Shiwali, District Kanpur Dehat, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶12

(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF

¶13

THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE 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

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANTS.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Since the bail application has been decided under extra ordinary circumstance, thus in the interest of justice, following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needles to mention, that these additional condition are imposed to cope up with the emergent condition:-

¶19

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶20

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

4. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.5.2020/Abhishek Sri.

Ram Sharan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sharan 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

Sawez @ Gattu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Nida Parveen Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Banshi Alias Karan Vs State of U.P.

Savej Vs State of U.P.

Ankit @ Chikna Vs State of U.P.