Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2021ABAIL/1088/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants in a criminal case alleging theft and forgery. Bail was granted invoking parity with a co-accused and relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal. The applicants were subject to standard bail conditions including travel restrictions, passport surrender, and presence at trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on filing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions including absence from the country, passport surrender, and appearance at trial stages.

Ram Awadh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1088 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Awadh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harendra Yadav,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; Shri Awdhesh Rai, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Ram Awadh and Vijay Shanker Yadav in Case Crime No.- 866 of 2020, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 Police Station - Sarai Lakhansi, District - Mau.

¶7

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶8

Co-accused person,Ramesh has already been granted anticipatory bail by order of date passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 954 of 2021. The case of the applicants stands on identical footing, hence the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of

¶10

applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

The applicants shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶13

The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passports will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶14

That the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade their from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶15

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶16

In case, the applicants misuse the liberty

¶17

of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶18

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.2.2021 Atul kr. sri.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Awadh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalwa Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasay Gazi Alias Abdul Wasay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Vs State of U.P.

Sachin and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ramvir Vs State of U.P. and Another