Allowed

Gangaram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2021CRLA/3143/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court allowed the bail appeal and set aside the order rejecting the repeated bail application. Relying on the finding that the appellant's role was limited to exhortation compared to co-accused with active roles in violence, the court held the bail rejection was illegal. Appellant is released on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside. Appellant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3143 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Gangaram Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Sharma,Pandey Balkrishna Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,R.B. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by appellant Gangaram against the impugned order dated 13.05.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly passed in Bail Application No.1512 of 2021( Gangaram vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2021, under Sections 452, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly, by which bail plea of appellant has been rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order this appeal has been filed.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been further submitted that as per FIR allegation the role of causing injury has been assigned to co-accused Babloo whereas coaccused Sovran has been assigned the role of catching hold and the appellant has been assigned the role of exhortation. Further submission is that the similar role was assigned to co-accused Virendra, who has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 2119 of 2021 in which by order dated 29.6.2021 the appeal has been allowed and the co-accused Virendra has been released on bail. It has been further submitted that the case of the appellant is on equal footing. The learned Special Judge has ignored the material aspect of the case and has rejected the bail application by the impugned order, which is not sustainable under law. Further submission is that appellant has no criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

¶8

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer but the fact that the appellant has been assigned the role of exhortation has not been denied by them.

¶9

Considered the submissions of both the sides. In view of the

¶10

argument advanced from both the sides, finding that the role of the appellant is limited to exhortation, I find that the learned Special Judge has committed illegality in rejecting the bail application and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶11

In the result, appeal is allowed . Impugned order dated 13.05.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly, is set aside.

¶12

Let appellant-applicant Gangaram be released on bail in Bail Application No. 1512 of 2021( Gangaram vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2021, under Sections 452, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Meerganj, District Bareilly on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant-appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶14

(ii) The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.9.2021 Mini

Gangaram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Kumar @ Pappu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shah Alam @ Buddhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohd.Rizwan @ Mohd.Hiraq and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another