Allowed

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2022BAIL/31628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by a transport corporation employee accused of carrying passengers without tickets. The court relied on factors including the lack of Body Worn Camera evidence during inspection, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the conclusion of departmental inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions preventing witness tampering and ensuring appearance in court.

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31628 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Naresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ram Naresh, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 288 of 2021, under Sections 409,420 IPC Police Station Bewar, District- Mainpuri, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Applicant is alleged to be conductor of U.P. Road Transport Corporation.There is allegation that he carried 33 passengers without ticket.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Circular of the Managing Director dated 1.12.2020 of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation which provides that at the time of checking of the buses by the inspection team they are required to wear Body Worn Camera and it shall be used in evidence of inquiry against the delinquent employee.He has further submitted that First Information Report was lodged after 16 days of the incident by way of per-planned implication of the applicant.The inspection team was not wearing Body Worn Camera.The departmental inquiry against the applicant has been concluded and his contract of the service has been terminated. The applicant is in jail since 24.6.2022 and has no criminal history.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

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

¶16

That 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer;

¶17

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat

¶19

such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.7.2022

¶23

Atul kr. sri.

¶24

Digitally signed by ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.26 17:12:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Naresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Naresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anish @ Bholu Vs State of U.P.

Jeut Rai Vs State of Up.

Daksh @ Darshan Vs State of U.P.

Yasveer Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Shakti Singh @ Monu Singh Vs State of U.P.