Allowed

Romi @ Rama Shankar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2022/7905/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the applicant is not named in the FIR, no identification parade was held, and with no criminal antecedent, it is a fit case for bail demanding sureties and strict conditions regarding attendance and evidence tampering during the trial.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties on conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and non-falsification of previous bail history.

Romi @ Rama Shankar Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7905 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Romi @ Rama Shankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Puttu Lal Misra,Narendra Pratap Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in FIR/Case Crime No. 0049 of 2021, under Sections 392, 411 of the IPC, P.S.- Madiyaon, District - Lucknow.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case by the police. He next submits that as per prosecution story, bag containing certain amounts was snatched away by unknown persons from the trunk of motorcycle of the father of the complainant. He submits that applicant is not named in the FIR and there is no any previous criminal antecedent of the applicant though he has been connected in three cases, after his arrest in the instant case. It is specifically mentioned in para 7 of the bail application that no identification parade was ever got done by the prosecution and has demonstrated that there is no any specific contradiction of the aforesaid fact by the State in his counter affidavit. He added that the present applicant was not involved in committing the offence but the police has connected him in the instant matter. He also added that charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and there is no possibility of tempering the evidences. The applicant is in jail since 22.02.2021. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was recovered from the present applicant when he was arrested and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that present applicant is not

¶11

named in the FIR; no identification parade was ever got done and charge sheet has been filed; further there is no previous criminal history against the applicant; coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 22.02.2021, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Romi @ Rama Shankar involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶16

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

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

¶18

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.10.2022 Ujjawal

¶20

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.10.11 19:35:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Romi @ Rama Shankar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romi @ Rama Shankar 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

Ajay Ghildyal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Seyc. Home Lko.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jainendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home.Lko

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamla Maghar Vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer Ncb Lucknow and Anr.