Allowed

Ram Sanehi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2020BAIL/3913/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to Ram Sanehi in a murder and kidnapping case involving a minor. The court noted FIR inaccuracies and lack of incriminating material against the applicant. Release was conditioned on a personal bond, sureties, and strict undertakings to avoid harassment of the victim and ensure court appearances. Trial was explicitly excluded from substantive consideration.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3913 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Sanehi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Priya Singh,Nawal Kishore Deo

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Priya Singh., learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Ram Sanehi, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 440 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 364 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the F.I.R the applicant is not named and the version as brought forward by the first informant is that his son aged about 10 years came back from the school, changed his clothes and immediately went out from the house. It was further stated that the F.I.R that in spite of search for sometime the whereabouts of his son Vikas could not be known. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure- 2 to the affidavit which is an application given by the first informant to the police in which he has stated that on 20.09.2019 at about 16:00 hrs some villagers told him that in the field in which Suresh Pal does farming some blood has been seen and a freshly made pit is also found on which he has full suspicion that the present incident has been committed by Suresh Pal, Ram Sanehi the present applicant, Guddi Devi and Uma Devi who had kidnapped his son, murdered him and have buried his body. There is no evidence at all to connect the applicant with the present case. He further states that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either on the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. He has further stated that the applicant is in jail since 25.09.2019 having no criminal history.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A and the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and stated that a boy of 10 years was kidnapped, murdered and buried whose body was exumed from the field which was being cultivated by Suresh Pal. The case is in the nature of circumstantial evidence and the matter is serious in nature and the bail application deserves to

¶9

be dismissed but could not dispute the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the offence.

¶10

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant, Ram Sanehi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶15

(V) The applicant 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 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶16

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶18

verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Ram Sanehi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sanehi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakeel Vs State of U.P.

Vineet Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Payasi Vs State of U.P.

Mauji @ Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jattan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.