Allowed

Babloo @ Ramgopal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/33074/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court disposed of a bail application filed by Babloo @ Ramgopal alleging false implication in a criminal case involving afghan offenses. The court found it a fit case to grant bail but imposed strict conditions, requiring a personal bond and sureties, as well as specific undertakings regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific undertakings regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

Babloo @ Ramgopal Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33074 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Babloo @ Ramgopal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bal Krishna Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bal Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, at Police Station Kakod, District Bulandshahr.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It He has further been submitted that the FIR of the alleged incident has been lodged against six persons including the applicant. In this incident two persons have sustained injury. It has further been submitted that there is general allegation against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It has further been submitted that the main role has been assigned to the co-accused Nittar @ Netrapal, who has already been granted bail by another bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23510 of 2021, therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail. It has further been submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 3.4.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposes the application for bail.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant Babloo @ Ramgopal, who is involved in

¶11

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 Section 229-A IPC.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.12.2021

¶20

Babloo @ Ramgopal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo @ Ramgopal 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

Vikram Vs State of U.P.

Karan Urf Babloo Urf Chiranji Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hradesh Rai Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P.

Sonam Verma Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.