Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Lucknow

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 94 of 2022

Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kant Tripathi,Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Range Case No.14 of 2021-22, under Sections 9, 27, 48(A), 49(B), 51 (1C) Wildlife (Protection) Act and 26 of the Indian Forest Act, Range- Paliya, District Lakhimpur Khiri.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint has been filed, wherein it has been alleged that present applicant was involved in selling wild pork and he was arrested on spot. He submits that the present applicant was never involved in aforesaid offence and police planted him in the instant matter. He also added that the applicant is resident of nearby village and he was never involved in selling of wild pork. There is no independent public eye witness of the said recovery. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent of which he has explained in para 14 of the bail application. The applicant is law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 19.09.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the offence as he was arrested on spot and as such he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there is no independent public eye witness of the said recovery; he is

¶10

resident of nearby village and further as per assertion of the applicant, he was not selling the wild pork; there is no criminal antecedent of the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 19.09.2021.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Ramesh Kumar 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 :- 12.10.2022 A.Kr*

¶20

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.10.16 21:15:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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.

Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil Secrt.Lko

Pradeep Kumar @ Dakiya Vs State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy. Home, Lko

Mohammad Israr Vs State of U.P.