Allowed

Ram Babu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2020BAIL/3063/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant, Ram Babu Yadav, in a criminal case involving Sections 272 IPC and Uttar Pradesh Excise Act offences. The court allowed the bail application subject to personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions regarding cooperation with trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ram Babu Yadav on bail in Crime No.132 of 2019 upon furnishing personal bond, two sureties, and executing a specific undertaking.

Ram Babu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3063 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Babu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Karan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.132 of 2019, under Sections 272 IPC and 60, 63, 72 of U.P. Excise Act, Police Station Baberu, District Banda, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He was not arrested on the spot and his name came into light on the statement of arrested co-accused persons. Criminal history has been explained in the affidavit accompanied with this bail application. Alleged recovery is false and fake. There is no any independent witness at the time of recovery. Applicant is in jail since 22.11.2019. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Due to heavy pendency of cases, trial is not likely to be concluded early in future.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that accused-applicant ran away from the spot and 122 lts. liquor wine has been recovered from the spot. There is criminal history of one case. Therefore, He is not entitled to bail.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶10

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Ram Babu Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of

¶12

the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.1.2020 I.A.Siddiqui

Ram Babu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rajan Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Pal and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jung Bahadur Singh @ Neksu Vs State of U.P.

Iliyas Vs State of U.P.

Raja Vs State of U.P.