Allowed

Ram Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2023/7247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application of Ram Bahadur under Wild Life Protection Act. Granted bail as complaint did not make specific allegations against him in the initial report, and offence punishable up to three years. Applicant to furnish bond and ensure presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Ram Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:75674

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7247 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Reshu Sharma,Amit Kumar Awasthi,Brijesh Kumar,Mool Chandra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Range Case No.1/2012-13, under Sections 9, 27, 35 (6), 51 (1) of Wild Life Protection Act, registered at Range Bankati, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged on 12.10.2012 against 49 persons, including the applicant stating that on 12.05.2012 a report was submitted by a Wildlife Guard stating that numerous persons riding on several hundreds of dunlaps (an improvised mechanical trolley) were driving to enter reserved forest. The forest officials tried to refrain them to do so but they entered the forest and took away dried and fallen trees.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant's involvement in 24 other cases of similar nature has been disclosed in para 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, in 17 of which the applicant has been granted bail.

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant's name is not mentioned in the report dated 12.05.2012 submitted by the Wildlife Guard which formed the basis of lodging of the complaint; that the complaint does not make any specific allegation against the applicant; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08..02.2023 and that the offence alleged carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment up to three years and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶12

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant-Ram Bahadur be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

As the applicant has been granted bail in the present case, the application for short term bail (Crl. Misc. Application No.IA4/23) filed on his behalf is rejected as infructuous.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 17.11.2023 Ram.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Mohamad Amir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Dpett. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajbeer Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gaurav Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dilsher Ahmad S/O Jalil Ahmad Vs U.O.I. Thru. Director C.B.I New Delhi

Kailash Nath Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another