Allowed

Ramraj Kol v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2021BAIL/17491/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant, Ramraj Kol, implicated in Sections 323/304 IPC. The court noted the lack of eyewitnesses, the applicant's clean record, and trial delays due to the pandemic. Bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring presence in court and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct.

Ramraj Kol Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17491 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ramraj Kol Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Krishnakant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Krishnakant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant herein has falsely been implicated by indicating his name in the first information report though there is no eyewitness of the incident. The applicant has no criminal history. As per the version in the first information report, general role has been assigned to all the five accused. Neither any weapon had been specifically assigned to the applicant nor the injuries suggest that the deceased was hit by five persons. The contention is that the co-accused had already been granted bail by this Court. It is then contended that the applicant is in jail since 17.07.2018 and the proceedings of trial have been hit on account of the disruption of the Court working due to pandemic COVID-19.

¶7

The submission is that the applicant undertakes to participate in the trial and that he will not take unnecessary adjournment.

¶8

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, taking note of the order-sheet of the trial court appended with the supplementary affidavit, the nature of allegations and the period of custody, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is fit case for grant of bail.

¶9

The bail application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶10

Let the applicant- Ramraj Kol s/o Hinch Lal involved in Case Crime No.160 of 2018, under Sections 323, 304 IPC, P.S.Manda, District- Allahabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten

¶12

the witnesses.

¶13

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

¶14

(iii) The applicant 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 him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(v) The applicant 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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.8.2021 P Kesari

Ramraj Kol v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramraj Kol 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

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shankar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ashok Vs State of U.P.

Saud Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs Banwari Singh Yadav