Allowed

Ramashankar @ Bichchu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2022BAIL/36254/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Ramashankar @ Bichchu charged with murder and other offences. The court found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case, considering the nature of the offence and evidence, and granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding court appearances and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail via personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions of presence in court and no abuse of liberty.

Ramashankar @ Bichchu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36254 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ramashankar @ Bichchu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Prakash Singh,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Ramashankar @ Bichchu with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 904 of 2020, under Sections 302, 504 IPC, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal/Bheemnagar, during pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case, an FIR has been lodged by Sri Ramkumar against as many as three accused persons including the applicant with the allegations that on 05.11.2020, the informant's brother namely Ramavtar alongwith his nephew namely Bijnesh were working on their field meantime Baburam and the applicant as well as other co-accused persons reached there and started abusing his brother whereupon all the accused persons with common intention to kill Ramavtar attacked upon him and Ramashankar fired at Ramavtar, due to which Ramavtar died.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that a cross FIR has also been lodged against the informant side. He further submits that one person from the applicant's side has also sustained injuries on his person in the alleged incident, at this stage it cannot be ascertain as to who is the aggressor. A per post mortem report the gun shot injury sustained by the deceased Ramavtar cannot be said to be from a near place as there is blackening and tattooing present. He further submits that the accused persons from the side of the informant in the cross case have already been released on bail. It is next argued that there is no prospect of trial being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. It is next submitted that the applicant is

¶9

languishing in jail since 09.11.2020. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history. There is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Accordingly, he requests for bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by contending that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, 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 involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) 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. 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.

¶14

(ii) The applicant 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

(iii) 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 applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) 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 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 5.12.2022 Arti

¶19

Digitally signed by ARTI SHARMA Date: 2022.12.08 11:58:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramashankar @ Bichchu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramashankar @ Bichchu 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

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Guddi Devi@ Asha Devi Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Rupesh Seth Vs State of U.P.

Kalu @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay @ Sanju Vs State of U.P.