Allowed

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2021BAIL/7084/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application by Ram Naresh in a murder and affray case. The applicant argued false implication; the court found sufficient grounds for bail and imposed strict conditions including personal bond pending court restoration to combat emergent circumstances affecting normal court functioning.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of courts is restored, upon execution of bond and surrendering sureties within a month thereafter.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7084 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Naresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Geetam Singh,Rakesh Kumar Mathur,Sanjay Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant namely, Ram Naresh. The earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 with liberty to file a fresh bail application as initially, the case was registered u/s 304 IPC but later on, during investigation the case was converted u/s 302 IPC and therefore, the aforesaid liberty was granted to the applicant.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 190 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 308 IPC, P.S. Puramufti, District- Kaushambi is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the prompt FIR was got registered by one Laxmi Narayan against eight named and one unnamed accused persons including the present applicant with the role of assault upon the deceased and making two others injured. It is further submitted that only general and omnibus role has been attributed to all the assailants out of which Videshiya @ Virendra and Shakuntla have already been admitted on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 12701 of 2021 and 12746 of 2021 vide orders dated 21.09.2021 and 22.09.2021 and the case of the present applicant stands on the identical footing with the case of accused persons who are admitted on bail. It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 07.07.2020 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Ram Naresh , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶15

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶16

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶17

(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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶22

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶27

Order Date :- 21.10.2021 Nisha

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh 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

Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Abid Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kuamr Siddharth Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jabir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Pratap @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.