Allowed¶13

Videshi Ram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2022BAIL/8344/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Ajay Bhanot J., 25.04.2022; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8344 of 2022; Videshi Ram v. State of U.P.; bail allowed; Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act Sections 3/5-A/5-B/8; Case Crime No. 155 of 2021, P.S. Jiatpura, Varanasi; vehicle owner defence; no recovery of prohibited cow meat; criminal history not contested; personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted; applicant Videshi Ram to be released on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no influencing witnesses, appearance on dates fixed, no inducement/threat/promise), with liberty to the prosecution to move for cancellation on breach. ¶13

Videshi Ram Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8344 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Videshi Ram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 155 of 2021 at Police Station- Jiatpura, DistrictVaranasi under Sections 3/5-A/5-B/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The applicant is in jail since 07.09.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Varanasi on 15.11.2021.

¶7

Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. No prohibited cow meat has been recovered from the applicant. The applicant is the vehicle owner who rents out his vehicle for a living. The hirer of the vehicle had represented to the applicant that he was carrying lawful goods and had supporting documentation. The applicant had no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid representation of a hirer who contacted

¶8

the applicant in the regular course of business.

¶9

Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contends that being from economically weaker section of the society the applicant has become a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who have repeatedly implicated the applicant in false cases in quick succession to burnish their professional credentials. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in the said cases. The criminal cases do not depict commission of any heinous crime by the applicant and have no bearing on the instant case. The applicant is not a flight risk and there is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶10

Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶11

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

In the light of the preceding discussion and without

¶13

making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Videshi Ram be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Deepika

¶21

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.04.29 16:17:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Videshi Ram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Videshi Ram 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin@ Khatola Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Bharati Vs State of U.P.

Sanavvar Vs State of U.P.

Rai Anoop Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Nazir Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Rashid @ Bantu Vs State of U.P.