Allowed

Ram Prakash Patel v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2020BAIL/5283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for enlargement on bail during trial in murder and assault case. Court notes delayed trial progression and parity with co-accused. Granted bail subject to strict conditions to prevent adjournment-seeking and tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5283 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Prakash Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Joveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sundeep Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 58 of 2012, under Sections 147, 304, 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Baharia, district-Allahabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by Hon. Ashok Srivastava, J. vide order dated 12.4.2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 27776 of 2012. The new ground on which the the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial, vide this application is that after the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant similarly placed coaccused Buddhu Lal Patel has already been enlarged on bail in the fourth bail application moved by the him by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36209 of 2018, copy of the bail order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. In the third bail application of co-accused Buddhu Lal Patel a specific direction was given to the trial court that the trial court shall conclude the trial within a eight months, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. but the trial has not yet been concluded. Seven witnesses out of 16 witnesses have

¶8

been examined till date. He lastly submits that the applicant, who is in jail since 28.5.2012 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial on the basis of merits as well as parity.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant but have not disputed the fact that trial is still pending and only seven witnesses have been examined till date.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering the period of detention and considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and

¶11

others, 2018(3) SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will or in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶12

Let the applicant, Ram Prakash Patel be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not seek adjournment during trial at any stage and if he seeks adjournment or does not cross-examine the witnesses then the opportunity of cross-examination of witness shall be stopped.

¶15

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶16

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶17

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.11.2020 Faridul

Ram Prakash Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash Patel 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Alias Satpal Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Jaysawal Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Shekhar Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.