Ranno @ Ranu Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 49

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44516 of 2022

Applicant :- Ranno @ Ranu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Pal,Yadvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. Applicant has been languishing in jail since 9.7.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

It has been stated that co-accused Dharmendra, who is named in the F.I.R., has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.9.2022 passed in criminal misc. bail application no.37623 of 2022. Role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused Dharmendra. It has also been stated that only simple injury has been caused to one of the police personnel. Grounds taken in the bail application are sufficient. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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.

¶9

Let the applicant Ranno @ Ranu involved in Case Crime No.217 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 332, 336, 341, 353, 307, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District - Etah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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.

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶13

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶16

Submission and observation recorded in the matter are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application. Trial court shall not be influenced in any way with the said observation / submission while deciding the trial.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.10.2022 ss

¶18

Digitally signed by SANDEEP SHARMA Date: 2022.10.21 17:16:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranno @ Ranu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranno @ Ranu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijai Alias Jhinguri Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kauthal Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Heera Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Israr Vs State of U.P.