Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2020BAIL/14912/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicants in a case involving offences under Sections 323, 325, 394, 395, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court imposed strict conditions regarding attendance, cooperation with the trial, and non-tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to specific conditions of attendance and cooperation.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14912 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Babu And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in S.S.T. No.10 of 2016, under Sections 323, 325, 394, 395, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mangalpur, District Kanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.9950 of 2017 (Ram Babu and others vs. State of U.P. and others), before this Court. On 17.02.2020 arrest was stayed by this Court but in view of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in Road Agency Private Limited & others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (2) Crimes 225 SCA, the stay was automatically vacated. Thereafter, N.B.W. was issued against the applicants. The applicants have not committed the alleged offence. False allegation has been made against them. 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. It is next contended that there is no criminal history of the applicants and they are languishing in jail since 17.03.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but it is not disputed that applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 17.02.2020 and trial court also directed on 05.02.2020, effective present stay order till 04.03.2019 ( it appears that due to typing error wrong date mentioned, it should be 04.03.2020).

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicants are entitled for bail, let the applicants- Rambabu and Dharmendra involved in aforesaid

¶10

case crime be released on bail on their 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 :-

¶11

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they will not tamper with the evidence and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will cooperate with the trial. The applicants 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicants 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 them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicants misuses 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 fails 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.

¶14

(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 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 22.6.2020 Jitendra

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu and Another 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

Ram Babu Patel Vs State of Up and Another

Supria Mishra Vs State of Up and 3 Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sukhram Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kuamar Singh Vs State of U.P.