Allowed

Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022/9861/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav under Section 439 CrPC and Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster Act. The court granted bail after perusing the material and referring to Supreme Court precedents, subject to standard conditions including furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail in case crime nos. shown in the application upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount.

Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9861 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ranjeet Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station- Baghray, DistrictPratapgarh, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per the gang-chart, three cases have been shown against the applicant as case crime no. 229 of 2021 under Section 379, 411 of the IPC, case crime no. 253 of 2021 under Sections 399, 402, 411 of the IPC and case crime no. 196 of 2021 under Sections 380 and 411 of the IPC which are registered at Police Station Baghray, District Pratapgarh. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Alleged recovery of three batteries and Rs.32,000/- in cash is made without compliance of mandatory provision of Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. There is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery. After arresting on the basis of the confessional statement of the applicant, the applicant is implicated in two other cases which have been registered against unknown persons.

¶8

It is further submitted that apart from the aforesaid criminal cases one case as case crime no. 518 of 2020 under Sections

¶9

332, 353, 506, 427 of the IPC at Police Station Kunda, DistrictPrataphgarh is pending against the applicant in which he has been granted bail. The applicant is granted bail in all four cases by Court below. It is further submitted that co-accused, Rajendra Yadav@Chulle, Brijesh Kumar and Lalit Singh have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9273 of 2022, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8931 of 2022 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9121 of 2022 vide order dated 24.08.2022, 08.08.2022 and 17.08.2022 respectively.

¶10

It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022 undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶13

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the provision of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act and the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest

¶14

of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let applicant, Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶16

(i) 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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶19

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶21

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶23

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Anurag, APS

¶28

Digitally signed by ANURAG SINGH Date: 2022.09.05 12:38:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Adhar @ Anurag Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

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

Bhagwati Raidas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuddus Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt U.P. Govt Civil Sectt Lko

Shyam Kishore Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Gulshan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another