Allowed

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021BAIL/25725/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to Ramu, an accused in a case involvingSections 147, 148, 307, and 504 IPC. The court considered the applicant's innocence claims, lack of criminal record, and parity with co-accused granted bail, finding it a fit case for bail while issuing strict conditions regarding trial participation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions of attendance and behavior during trial.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25725 of 2021 Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jay Singh Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 91 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 504 IPC, P.S. Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur.

¶6

It is contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that FIR has been lodged against six persons including the applicant and no specific role has been assigned either to the applicant or any other co-accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 28.05.2021 and has no criminal history.

¶7

It is next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Nanhe Singh @ Satyapal and Lau have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.08.2021 and 17.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 27695 & 27483 of 2021, respectively, therefore, applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

I have perused the bail order of co accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co accused person who has already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Ramu, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(ii) 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

¶14

Section 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iii) 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) 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.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

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

¶21

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.9.2021/RavindraKSingh

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Lakhan Vs State of U.P.

Hasib Khan Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Vs State of Up

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Guddi Vs State of U.P.

Phool Chand and Another Vs State of U.P.