Allowed

Ramjiyavan Modanval and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2022ABAIL/11667/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to multiple applicants in an FIR alleging offenses under Sections 147, 354, 354(A/B), 323, 427, 506, 325, and 452 IPC. The High Court relied on Sushila Aggarwal to release the applicants on personal bond and two sureties, imposing conditions regarding interrogation, non-interference, and court appearances. The decision does not affect the trial outcome.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding interrogation, interference, international travel, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and court atten

Ramjiyavan Modanval and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11667 of 2022 Applicant :- Ramjiyavan Modanval And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Navin Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶5

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R. No. 247 of 2021, under Sections 147, 354, 354 (A), 354 (B), 323, 427, 506, 325, 452 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi), with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶6

As per prosecution story, the applicants and one Sonu are said to have outraged the modesty of the daughter of the first informant and are said to have inflicted injuries to the other family members at some unknown date and time.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. Learned counsel has stated that there are no allegations against the applicants of outraging the modesty of the daughter of the first informant, but the same are against the co-accused person, Sonu. Learned counsel has stated that no date and time of the offence has been mentioned in the FIR. The current FIR is a counterblast to the FIR No. 226 of 2021, which had been lodged by the applicant no. 1 against the first informant and his family members, whereby the injuries were sustained by two persons from the side of the applicants. No offence, whatsoever, has been committed by the applicants. There is no criminal history of the applicants. It is further stated that applicants are co-operating in the investigation and are ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicants repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory

¶9

bail but has not disputed the fact that applicants have no criminal history and the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- (2020) 5 SCC 1 ", the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicants- Ramjiyavan Modanval, Ramkhelavan Modanval, Pramod Modanval and Dayashankar Yadav be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

that the applicants 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.11.2022\Shalini

¶21

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.01 11:43:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramjiyavan Modanval and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjiyavan Modanval and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Smt Kalyani@ Kalpana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramji Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Monu @ Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Man Singh @ Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another