Allowed

Ramjanam and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023ABAIL/5519/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J. allowed the anticipatory bail application of Ramjanam and Sushil in a criminal case involving alleged assault and intimidation. The court relied on Apex Court precedent, noting apprehension of arrest due to procedural irregularities and allegations of false implication, without expressing an opinion on trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond with two sureties under specified conditions.

Ramjanam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:129890

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5519 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramjanam And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy,Ranjeet Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0063 of 2023, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 325, 506 IPC, Police Station Baradah, District Azamgarh, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have assaulted the son of the informant Chandresh Kumar, aged about 20 years on 13.2.2023 at about 10.00 pm causing grievous injuries to him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have the apprehension of their arrest. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the GD no. 24 dated 15.2.2023, which categorically indicates that both the parties were challaned under Section 151, 107, 116 Cr.P.C. and both were released by the concerned Magistrate. No fracture to the parietal bone was observed by the doctor conducting the radiological examination. Only the fracture to the hand and leg has been observed. The said injuries were caused by general public at large.

¶11

Learned counsel has next stated that subsequently, the police is chasing the applicants. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on

¶12

the information fetched through Right to Information Act, whereby it was indicated that it was the applicant no. 1, who has informed the police about the theft having been committed in his house and the said theft was apprehended by them. The said call was made on 13.2.2023 at 23:43:56 hours. There is another call detail of 23:46:49 hours which indicates that both the parties were apprehended and they are being taken to the police station.

¶13

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the criminal antecedents of both the accused persons has been explained. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has not misused the opportunity granted earlier on. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶15

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Ramjanam and Sushil involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶18

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶19

ii. that the applicants 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;

¶20

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the

¶21

court;

¶22

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 Shalini

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramjanam and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjanam and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Ojha Vs State of U.P.

Amjad Khan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vikash Verma Vs State of U.P.

Deo Raj Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Safeen Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gopal@ Abhay Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another