Allowed

Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023BAIL/18451/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to an applicant in a cheating case after finding that framing of charges was delayed due to absconding co-accused. The court directed the trial court to separate the applicant's trial to prevent indefinite detention.

What did the court decide?

Relief: Bail allowed on furnishing bond with sureties. Direction to trial court to separate applicant's trial.

Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18451 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Kumar Pal,Pankaj Dwivedi,Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Vinod Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajneesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant.

¶6

By means of this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 509 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C., Police StationSoraon, District-Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9761 of 2021 with the direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that order dated 18.02.2021 of this Court was filed before the trial Court along with the application dated 05.04.2021 which was seen by the concerned Presiding OfÏcer, copy of the said application has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the afÏdavit. The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 19.08.2020, but till date charge has not been framed against the applicant, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed

¶10

the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that there are three accused persons in this case namely, Sunil Kumar Patel @ Mahendara Patel, Ramanand @ Nate (present applicant) and Om Prakash @ Sosi. The applicant is in jail, but remaining two accused persons are absconding, therefore, the charge could not be framed against the applicant. However, they could not dispute the above factual aspect of the matter as argued on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that vide order dated 18.04.2023 a report was called for from the concerned Presiding OfÏcer with regard to present status of trial of the applicant. Pursuant to the said order, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 17, Allahabad submitted his report dated 25.04.2023, which is on record wherein it is mentioned that non-bailable warrant had already been issued against the rest of the accused persons on 11.10.2021 by the trial Court but on account of non-service of the same upon the absconding accused and their non-appearance before the trial Court, charges could not be framed against them including the applicant. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the accused cannot be detained for indefinite period without trial. It is well settled that speedy trial of accused is his fundamental right. It is also relevant to note that Sub-Section (2) of Section 317 of Code of Criminal Procedure affords an illustration of the circumstances under which a Magistrate can order that a case can be taken up or tried separately. So it cannot be said that splitting of joint trial is unknown to criminal law. I find that no effort has been made by the trial Court to separate the trial of the present accused-applicant who is regularly appearing before the trial Court.

¶12

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, detention period of the applicant and stage of trial as noted above, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal , 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶17

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶19

Trial Court is directed to separate the trial of the applicant and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.4.2023 Kashifa

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanand @ Nanhkooram @ Natepal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankur Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Kumar Bhardwaj @ Shani Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others