Allowed

Ramkeshviyar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2021BAIL/8880/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application in two connected criminal miscellaneous cases. Addressing arguments regarding the unexplained delay in the deceased's medical examination and the lack of causal link between the alleged assault and death, combined with pandemic-related jail overcrowding, the judge granted bail subject to standard conditions including furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions, including non-tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8880 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramkesh Viyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Archana Hans,Shashank Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

With

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24886 of 2021

¶6

Applicant :- Ramkesh Viyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶9

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.73 of 2020 at Police Station-Jamalpur, District-Mirzapur on 05.08.2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur on 10.09.2020.

¶11

The applicant is in jail since 17.08.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶12

Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel, Sri

¶13

Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the applicant contend that as per the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R., the incident of assault occurred on 02.08.2020. The medical examination of the deceased happened on 06.08.2020. The delay in the medical examination has not been explained. However, the deceased was medically examined for the first time only on 06.08.2020 and admitted to hospital on that date. The deceased died on 17.08.2020. There is no proximity between the incident and the death of the deceased. The death is not relatable to the assault alleged in the F.I.R. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The criminal prosecution is as a result of a neighbourhood dispute. Apart from this case, the applicant does not have any criminal history.

¶14

Lastly it is contended by Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶15

Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the

¶16

aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶17

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jail during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶18

I see merit in the submissions of Sri Shashank Mishra, learned counsel, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant-Ramkesh Viyar involved in Case Crime No.73 of 2020 at Police Station-Jamalpur, District-Mirzapur under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 following conditions.

¶21

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

The applicant will not influence the prosecution witness.

¶23

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶26

Order Date :- 11.11.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Ramkeshviyar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkeshviyar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mirza Akhtar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University Agra Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner Agra and 2 Others

Kendriya Vidyalaya Iffco Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and 2 Ors.

Triloki Singh Vs Manager/Sewa Yojak Pariyojna Prabandhak and Others

M/S Resistoflex Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Authority Under Section 6-H1 of U.P.and Others

Ramendra Pal Singh Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court-I and Another