Allowed

Ram Pyare v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023ABAIL/3510/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail for Ram Pyare in a Prevention of Damage to Public Property case. The applicant alleged false implication and cooperating with investigation. Court granted bail until trial conclusion subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Ram Pyare till conclusion of trial on personal and two sureties with several conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

Ram Pyare Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181195

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3510 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Pyare Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Udit Chandra,Nitesh Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.140 of 2022, registered under Sections 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, at Police Station- Iradat Nagar, District- Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the vehicle truck no. MP07HB7046 was found overloaded carrying crushed gravel beyond its capacity on 24.8.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The offence, if any, made out is under the Motor Vehicles Act. The present case has been instituted with an ulterior motive. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 31.3.2023 and has not misused it. The final report (charge-sheet) has already been filed. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Ram Pyare be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii). 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Vikas

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Pyare v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pyare 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

Mehfooj Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Hussain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Manjeet Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Pal @ Chhunna Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Avadhesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another